User talk:Vassyana

Word of the day
Treeware. noun. /'triwɛər/.
An antediluvian method of publishing information on a portable medium created from processed arboreal macerate, often with decorative covers glossed by petrochemical solids.

"Reginald went to the athenaeum to peruse treeware with the assistance of an informatics professional."

---

Thought of the day: I am seriously and vastly disturbed by the proposals for increased bureaucracy and centralized committees flying about Wikipedia recently. I strongly oppose any such change, and will depart the community if it takes this well-meaning but vastly wrong-headed turn (as it is directly contradictory to the community I joined). It is a solution to a problem that only exacerbates the problem. The problems are being caused by rigid interpretations of the rules and excessive bureaucratic sprawl. Adding more of the same is not a solution, it's masochistic and foolish. 01:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Help me out.

• Take a look over History of early Christianity and Apostolic Age and provide some feedback on the talk pages. Thanks! 06:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Contribute some thoughts and feedback to m:Dispute resolution analysis group.

---

• What I did today and thought of the day archives: 1
• Talk Page archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Civility concerns

You may recall the exchange below from a little less than a week ago on my talk page. While I am not going to address Keeper's comments regarding your neutrality, I am interested in how my concerns were breaches in civility. I had waited for you to respond, and after waiting a sufficient amount of time to have you reply, I decided to come on over and ask a tad more pointedly.

(edit conflict) I was closing this with the comments: Civility concerns are among the least of the problems in this dispute and being polite about being disruptive doesn't lessen the disruption. However, you have not been as civil as you'd claim. For example, snide passive-aggressive comments about the other party, such as in this block request, are hardly what would normally be called "polite" or "civil". This dispute is certainly getting beyond edit warring disruptive as well, justifying a slightly longer block. here and here are little more than huge mounds of bickering. Both of you certainly know better. — Vassyana (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Might I trouble you to point out the "snide, passive-aggressive comments" in my unblock request? If an accurate description, how is it in fact snide? And if I have not been polite in my dealings with the other party, could you perhaps present an example or two of such? Understand that I am not debating the block reasoning; I am requesting you provide examples of that which I do not see. If I am making mistakes in how I perceive politeness, I would want to know them, and avoid such in the future. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

For example, the comment: "... I would point out that I did not game the system by offering a tendentious edit and then request page protection to lock that version in place less than 10 minutes later." Comments like that are clearly a way of accusing someone else of that exact action. That style of comment is not an isolated incident for you, with some comments more snarky (or snide) than others. One can be accurate without being derogatory or derisive. Vassyana (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, is that not an accurate assessment of what happened? The very first line of WP:GAME states:

Gaming the system means using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith, to deliberately thwart the aims of Wikipedia and the process of communal editorship.

By editing outside of consensus (aka communal editorship), and then seeking to have the article protected less than ten minutes afterwards to prevent that edit from being subject to revision, how is that not gaming the system?

Now, if you mean by snarky or snide that I was instead guilty of calling a spade a WP:SPADE, I will grant you that. However, I do not see how calling it such was derogatory or derisive, though. Please help me understand. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

To Vassyana: Vassyana, are you confident that you are a neutral, reviewing admin, to deny a request for unblock, considering you've blocked Arcayne yourself in the recent past? this seems to me to be a good place to recuse yourself and let others talk with Arcayne (I'm not endorsing the block, or endorsing any future unblock at this point, just pointing out the block log to anyone else that wanders into this page... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You can be accurate without being derogatory and derisive. Defending oneself by such snide tu quoque arguments is hardly the height of civility or maturity, to be generous. If you earnestly cannot distinguish between legitimate complaints, reasonable self-defense and rudely snarky comments, there's not much I can do. I can, at best, perhaps point out a few comments and give your some description of what is problematic about them. Vassyana (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I can see how I began to lose my patience with the constant verbal attacks, but I don't think I ever crossed the same lines that Viriditas was. I would appreciate your input on those comments. I would also enjoy hearing about how I could better have phrased such a complaint. I honestly don't think I created this recent problem. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't misinterpret me to mean that "it's all your fault", as that is not at all my intent. As I mention in my original message to you, there were huge piles of bickering between the both of you, and I believe you both know better. If someone is getting under your skin, disengage for a bit and cool down. One thing I can clearly recommend is when defending yourself, do not impugn the other party. It can easily come across as petty, snide and/or otherwise problematic (as well as relying on a logical fallacy). Stick to talking about your own actions, taking a bit of blame as is appropriate. If you have complaints about another party, try to avoid phrasing it in such a way that is aggressive or inflammatory, and try to keep the complaint distinct and separate from other issues (as much as possible). Let's use the above example as a general template. It would be best to first take a breath and make sure you're calm. Then, post a message to say AN/I with a post titled "Concerns about Article X" or something similar. The message could be simply: "On Article X, an editor made an edit[diff] and immediately requested full protection[diff]. I believe this was to lock that version into place. (Yes, I know about protection versions.) Could a few admins look over the situation?" Mind you, that is a quite sanitized and deferential version. Honey, vinegar, bees and all that. You are more likely to receive a good response by minimizing the accusations and putting emphasis on the evidence and your awareness of common rebuttals. Anyone around long enough and active enough to become an admin should be well-enough familiar with tendentiousness and playing the system to deal with such problems appropriately. Does that all make sense? Vassyana (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It does, though I am still a bit unsure as to how to address the problem that resulted in me blocked, ie., the problem with Viriditas. He is capable of doing good work elsewhere, and clearly, knows how to use the system to gain the upper hand. How does one address that? He has close to 40k edits - I actually have a full-time job and cannot match that edit rate. Understand that I am not trying to beat him; I am however, trying to avoid being out-maneuvered by him. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Without clicking on a single diff, Arcayne, my question to you is "why do you feel you need to out-maneuver anyone? I highly respect your content contributions, and meta contributions, and I was attempting to get you unblocked earlier. Your most recent post here, however, feels more like "I wanna win for me" instead of "I wanna better encyclopedia". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the vindication your looking for is for your own good pleasure. Time to move along, perhaps, regardless of you or Viriditas' edit rate? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I misspoke. I am not interested in maneuvering anyone (or out-maneuvering); I was saying that I rather dislike being unable to stop someone from gaming the system to their advantage, when the neutral position is far more of a better place for an encyclopedia to be. Making a good encyclopedic entry does make me happy; those using to enforce their personal views is utterly frustrating. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I am still ready for input, Vass. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the best things you can do is raise any issues for broader input via the noticeboards, RfC, third opinion, and so on. You've taken that route, but it's devolved into bickering with previous attempts. At that point, the use of such avenues is self-defeating. It is a natural human response to respond with a fair measure of apathy or antipathy, when facing arguments that go round and round. When you approach it as (or use language indicating) a struggle to be won, people will respond in a similar fashion. On this specific topic, I would recommend just walking away and revisiting the issue a bit later. On any further issues, or the raising of any particular topic later, I would recommend that you use the available methods of drawing outside opinion and that you keep such message as neutral and just-the-facts-ma'am as possible. Avoid being drawn into revolving arguments and keep your rebuttals on-point and to a minimum. As much as it may seem as though you are arguing about the topic at hand, bickering simply clouds the central issues and sabotages the dispute resolution process. Vassyana (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I am willing to give that a go. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Good deal. :) If you have any questions or need any advice, feel free to drop a message on my talk page at any time. If you are feeling frustrated and just need to vent and get some feedback, please feel free to send me an email. I'm earnestly willing to help however I can. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Again

Vassyana, I want my editing to be above reproach. If you are willing I would very much like it if you would look over my edits, and if you see anything wrong tell me so I can correct it. There are certain situations where I'm in a quandary as to what should be done. For example, I wish I didn't feel that so many reverts were necessary. I take pains not to edit war, but don't know how to revert less than I do. The only way I really know to avoid some trouble would be to not edit in my Wikipedia area of interest, which I'm not willing to do. Short of that, I'm very open to suggestion. I have taken other suggestions in the past, such as at least attempting a 1rr policy when jossi suggested it. Anyway, your feedback would be welcome if you are willing. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, one of the things I can tell you bluntly upfront is that your response to my block and the unblock of ScienceApologist was highly inappropriate, bordering on rallying against SA. It was very opportunistic and completely not relevant to the situation at hand. Your comments had nothing to do with the block or the situation around it. Instead, it was just a chance to bitch about SA (accurate or not). You are not the only person that acts in such a fashion, but it is regardless deeply inappropriate and very disappointing. Part of the problem with that entire area of the wiki is that issues, complaints and disagreements get raised whenever certain editors or topics come into discussion that are not related to the issue at hand. It's disruptive in that it distracts from the discussion of the relevant issue and really is little more than trolling. If you wish to be taken more seriously and treated more respectfully, avoiding such tasteful action would be a very good start. Vassyana (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Vassyana - a quick comment, and something to consider. I am for the most part an editor who likes to copy edit, but I have actively worked on a few articles on which MartinPhi also edits. My interest is not in making any comments on anyone's behaviour here, but I do believe that its worth noting that if Martin is on an article, he faces pretty much the same line up of editors, and the environment is not always easy to deal with. Martin is for the most part pretty even and controlled despite that environment. He seems highly sincere in what he does on those articles, and I see that he is humble enough and sincere enough to ask for help. Yes, I am defending him, because he's a valuable editor who behaves in a civil manner most of the time even when things become uncomfortable, and who edits where most editors would fear to tread. I'm not convinced that unless another editor is on the spot with him, he or she can really read the situation. I certainly couldn't until I had edited a few article on which he was also present. This is not a comment on recent events or behaviours, but rather a comment on an overall more holistic viewpoint, and a possibly another side of the story to consider. Just a thought or two. Thanks.(olive (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC))

One comment: I can work with Martin and he makes many valid arguments. It's his obsesion with SA's behaviour that makes him lose it --Enric Naval (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Olive, I can understand the point you're making. However, Martin asked for honest feedback and there was a recent example to point out. I'd rather be blunt and forward with him, than pussyfoot around and never really get across what I see as a problem. I understand perfectly well that people on both sides are quite correctly frustrated with some editors. However, what the other side does wrong is not a valid excuse for stepping over the line oneself. Vassyana (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Vassyana. I agree with your comments, in general, and believe them to be critical on Wikipedia. I think also, we all have our breaking points dependent on the environments we choose to place ourselves in. However, my point was not to debate you, or to question your judgment but simply to present a viewpoint. Many thanks for your time.(olive (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC))

Vassyana, it seems like you feel as if I was wanting to kick SA while he was down. That's not the way I saw it. Rather, I stayed silent till he was unblocked and I knew it was permanent. Then I put in all that stuff to try and explain to you what I actually have to put up with. To me, SA is not down, he is where he always is, top of the mound, able to do 10 times what would get me perm banned.

You're right: I mainly wasn't even trying to talk about the block and the situation around it- which is a minor episode and turned out the way it always does. I was trying to explain myself to you, so that you could become familiar with my view and maybe help. As far as I could see, the issue was closed already: he was staying unblocked. So, since I didn't see the issue as relevant to any action, I was just trying to explain how I see my relationship to SA and his friends.

You probably also feel I question your decision not to fight the unblock. I don't, for two reasons. First, because you'd have to wheel war, second because you don't have all the information I do, and so can't see the situation as clearly as I can. If you want to know more, send me an email. But it won't make any practical difference. I only mention it because there was no injustice to SA on my part (when I assumed he did use the socks), because I have no cause for doubt, the way you do have cause.

The general consensus among those I've contacted by email is that it would be difficult for Vassyana to believe me unless he really follows me around-- and he's not going to have the time to do that. People are funny in that they have to see things to believe them.

But one other thing: I feel that I have suffered as much injustice on WP as one can in a situation like this. I don't think that keeping quiet about injustice is the way to go. It just enables it to continue. That extends far beyond SA.

Olive is one of the editors who has been abused by SA and friends- she's seen and therefore believes.

Also, I kept quiet for a few months there about SA himself, and what happened? Nothing to slow him down. So staying silent doesn't work. You might also consider that I only said anything after all was said and done, and only on your talk page, even though I knew what was going on minutes after it happened.

If you do think you have the time to hash these things out with me, let me know. I do value blunt feedback, even if I think it takes what I was trying to accomplish and say the wrong way. I guess basically you just kind of felt like SA was the underdog there, and I don't. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your input requested regarding reliable sources

Any insights you might offer to this discussion would be helpful and appreciated.  : ) --MPerel 03:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Limits of freedom in Userspace

Hi Vassyana, I find your statement [1] interesting. I am currently exploring issues of "freedom in Userspace". I think your position is definately debatable. The actual circumstances may be necessary to understand your position. Could you point me at what you were talking about? Thanks. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

DanaUllman was placed under a topic ban, see here. The subject of the topic ban continued to be discussed on his user talk page here. You may find more information/opinion about the situation in the section that follows. If you have any additional questions, or any criticisms, please always feel free to drop a line here on my talk page. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 04:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, I fully support your position, if I understand it correctly. His topic ban applies to all of Wikipedia, including his own user space. He should just avoid the subject as long as the topic ban is active. That would even apply to questions on those topics. He must refuse to answer them. Is that correct? -- Fyslee / talk 05:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I would use a small bit of common sense for the occasional exception,* but generally speaking, quite right. Vassyana (talk) 05:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC) * He is a notable author in his field and a few legitimate questions are bound to fall under the topic, while not presenting any significant threat of disruption.

(Referring to your last comment....) Since he is primarily here to advocate homeopathy, any discussion by him that is not directly related to the editing of an article would be a misuse of Wikipedia. -- Fyslee / talk 05:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If he can be productive in other areas of the wiki, I don't see how it would be particularly a problem unless it got out of hand. However, I'll leave that for other people to judge or I'll step in if it goes overboard or becomes the only on-wiki activity of the account. Vassyana (talk) 05:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as he doesn't discuss the subjects of his topic ban, then the ban will be having an effect, one of which may be to get him to try editing other subjects if he so desires. -- Fyslee / talk 06:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Vassyana, thanks for the answer. I was unaware that you are a member of the mediation committee. I might suggest that you could clarify when you a speaking in you capacity as a member of that committee, when it might be considered that you are exercising the powers of the God-King, or alternatively expressing a personal opinion. I understand that this user has limited experience with wikipedia, that we have too many rules for new users to understand, that he needs to carefully understand WP:COI among other things, and I hope that when his ban is over, he will again be welcome to contribute productively. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Being part of the MedCom sadly gives me no special God-King powers. *chuckle* Besides, there's very little to proclaim for the MedCom, outside of membership, opening/closing cases and enforcing the priveleged nature of mediation. Unless noted otherwise, my actions are quite simply my own. It is my understanding that many explanations and warnings have been provided to the user. It may be helpful for them to acclimate without engaging in that area of personal passion. I would certainly support a topic ban over a full ban or block. Vassyana (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

lectures

Hope to see you on irc in a moment :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban

Vassyana, I respect you and your history of participation on wikipedia. However, I am totally confused about your accusation of meatpuppetry.[2] Please explain or please apologize. Please note that I have gotten mixed messages about what the meaning of my topic ban is. As you can see by this diff, Tim Vickers told me that it does not extend to user pages.[3] Please know that my comments on my own user page were made in the good faith assumption that it was allowed. Because of your status and history with wikipedia, I assume that your message is accurate (except for the meatpuppetry part), and I will honor it. However, if you consider Tim's advice to be more accurate, please let me know. DanaUllman^Talk 00:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, Please notice also this and this comments from Tim, which put the ban more on context --Enric Naval (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that you now understand that I was acting in good faith. Despite editing in a "war zone," I have avoided edit wars (only once did I go up to 3RR...and even for that one time, some editors have criticized me), have acted in good faith to a high degree (and even been criticized for showing good faith and for asking it from others), and have often gotten consensus despite dealing with so many lividly anti-homeopathic editors. It is no wonder that a gang of anti-homeopathic editors want to mute me. As for editing on "other" topics, I have very limited time to be on wikipedia, and I prefer to edit on those areas of my special expertise. Even though some editors call this a "single purpose account," I have sought to edit a variety of articles in which homeopathy intersects, and yet, I have been criticized for doing that too (damned if I do and damnned if I don't). DanaUllman^Talk 13:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Haha, good misrepresentation there, Dana. You were criticized for being WP:CIVIL to avoid sanctions and not for showing good faith. Actually, you have not shown good faith many times as shown on the evidence on Homeopathy arb case. I won't even talk about getting consensus, see evidence page for that, or about the WP:COI on only editing articles where you can introduce studies that appear at books that you have written, evidence page again.

Dana, you must stop misrepresenting your behaviour. You are in a hole, stop digging it deeper. Vassyana, sorry for hijacking your talk page for this. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC) You know what, forget it, I'm tired of Dana using WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. He is already perfectly aware of everything I said, no point on giving him yet one more good faith advice that will be ignored. At this pace, he's going to dig his hole all the way to China and I won't care anymore --Enric Naval (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My sincere apologies, Vassyana, for having to point out Enric's strategy to seem exasperated, when he is one of the editors with whom I have had the greatest content dispute issues. I will certainly admit to making some errors in this war zone, but many editors consider me very level-headed and are even impressed that I have remained calm in the difficult atmosphere. I'm glad that Enric makes it clear that he considers expertise, such as writing a book, as COI. Is the new wikipedia policy going to be that everyone who writes a book cannot edit on wikipedia? God help us if anyone takes this one seriously. It is ironic that I am seen as an "advocate," while skeptics of homeopathy are not seen as advocates of skepticism of homeopathy. The pendulum swings both ways. DanaUllman^Talk 21:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The COI connected with the book arises from writing a book that comes to, shall we say, contentious conclusions and then attempting to edit articles (e.g. those connected with Charles Darwin) to agree with the book. Brunton (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

First, I never gave reference to my new book. Where is the COI in that? Instead, my info on Darwin was reference to his own letters and to biographies written about him. Further, I don't understand what the "problem" was because I didn't edit war, I provided Talk, and bowed out when the "vote" was against inclusion. On the other hand, I was able to get several important changes to the article on James Manby Gully, Darwin's physician/hydrotherapist/homeopath. Vassyana, I sincerely hope that one day you'll see that Brunton is providing additional evidence of editors with whom I have content dispute who exaggerate "problems" or simply say that there is a problem when there isn't and wasn't. I still assert that you've been gamed by editors here who are experienced and with whom content disputes are the problem. Please note that I assume good faith, but I will point out the absence of good faith when and where the evidence suggests it (as noted here) DanaUllman^Talk 13:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Posted on Seicer

It appears this user has deleted a page of mine claiming advertisement. This Idiot appears to have chosen to lack review and/or assistance in improving rather than stroking on things he may not know of.

I see you also had chapped him for stupidity prior to my interaction as well. Assistance in getting this page back up and revised would be nice. I was "kind" enough to eliminate the "You Idiot" but I owe no more kindness for stupidity.

This posted page (MERS) is a legimate page and should be reposted as it is the future for how mortgage and land title work is being accomplished.

Posted on his talk: MERS There you go! I do not need to have a nice tone, as I owe you nothing. You on the other hand, different story.

How can MERS page be advertisement? I do not work for them nor do I advertise for them. It is not contained in the pedia and this is an attempt to be in it. If you read it you will see what the purpose of the MERS is and not too many know of it since it is now a conglomerate method over the traditional way mortgage & land title work too place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradiver (talk • contribs) 02:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The original needed to be updated and I'm sure there are many who would and could do such. Shouldn't you consider adding and seeking how to improve rather than commenting on something that you may not know much about? Suggestion: get the page back on so it can be corrected! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradiver (talk • contribs) 02:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the page you are looking for is deletion review. I would have replied on my talk page, but your hostile and rather rude message leaves more to be desired. As I am traveling and out-of-town for most of this week, I'll have little to no Internet access. And complaining to other administrators about the issue won't work here. Here is the last page revision, FTR. seicer | talk | contribs 23:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a promotional fluff piece to me, strongly resembling standard corporate "information" copy. Regardless, Seicer is correct. I'm not a policy wonk, but this seems like a clearcut case and if you want to argue about the propriety of the deletion, deletion review is that way. Vassyana (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Lectures

Thank you very much for doing a wikipedia lecture!

Help Regarding WP:CON, WP:RSN

Hi Vassyana, I don't think we've crossed paths yet, but I have seen you over at WP:ANI, and thought that perhaps you would be able to help out with a content dispute, or at least tell me where to go next? There was an edit war over at Veterinary chiropractic over the inclusion of text based on a source with unknown reliability (Diffs: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] and perhaps more?) . To try to stop the edit war, and prevent the article from being locked due to it, I took the source over to WP:RSN [9]. Unfortunately, there was not a lot of contribution to the thread there, and I don't think a clear consensus emerged, although there is disagreement on that point. It appears that a new edit war may start soon over the inclusion of this source. Where do I go from here? Thanks in advance, DigitalC (talk) 05:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in full disclosure, I just checked the history of Veterinary chiropractic, and it looks like I was wrong that a new edit war may start, as it has already started (although slowly).DigitalC (talk) 05:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

See my notices to the two main parties.[10][11] If you have further questions, please ask. Vassyana (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the talk page.[12] We already have third-party input from an external observer.[13] QuackGuru 07:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I wrote on the talk page that we have a third-party opionion which explained that the article qualifies under WP:SPS.[14] Thanks for your understanding. QuackGuru 07:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The third-party opinion said it meets WP:SPS.[15] I will respect the external observer at the WP:RSN. QuackGuru 07:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Levine2112 agreed to abide by the RSN passing. QuackGuru 07:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion was hardly unanimous and the talk page discussion does not seem to have produced an agreement. Vassyana (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The third-party input explained the source qualifies under Wikipedia's standard but the source and text was deleted against the advise of the RSN external input. QuackGuru 07:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Other responses objected to the use of that particular source. Some responses commented that rewording, or a better summary, per the source may be appropriate. Please stop misusing the RSN thread. Stop ignoring the need for consensus and the prohibition on edit warring. I will not continue to debate this particular situation with you. You are well aware of what is expected of editors. Vassyana (talk) 08:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked at WP:3O and found that because this content dispute involves more than 2 editors, it doesn't appear this can go there. Is it appropriate to repost this to WP:RSN (they don't appear to like that), or what is the next step to resolving this?DigitalC (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Filing an RfC could be helpful, as they expose the disagreement to the broader community for feedback. You can also leave polite neutral messages asking for outside views at WT:VET, WT:AMED, WT:MED and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative Views, as WikiProjects are a great place to ask for informed opinions. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears Levine2112 is edit warring at the main chiropractic article.[16][17][18][19] There was discussion for a rewrite. Many of the obsolete studies were removed and replaced with newer peer-reviewed studies. There was broader community feedback for the recent changes in a new RFC on the chiropractic talk page. Do you have specific suggestions on how to resolve this particular content dispute. Thanks. QuackGuru 20:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The page is protected. Please sort these issues out politely on the talk page. Vassyana (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that was the best move for now. Thank you, Vassyana. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Block Review

Hi Vassyana: This block strikes me as excessively long given the rationale provided, which I think is based on an unfair exposition of the facts, a profound misreading of events and represents the successful gaming of good faith admins. What is the best venue for remonstration and redress on this issue? Thanks! Eusebeus (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

overshort if anything. A person who intend to test the limits as long as we let him. Speaking of gaming.... DGG (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to post to AN/I to ask for a review of my actions. However, escalating lengths of blocks, especially when blocked for the same reason (ArbCom enforcement) is fairly standard. TTN blatantly violated his ArbCom restrictions.[20][21] I don't see how my block was at all questionable or excessive. Vassyana (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Vassy! Eusebeus (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try once more here before I take it to the piranha pool: TTN's restrictions clearly states that he is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. He did not initiate the discussion on Bulbasaur. Bulbasaur had a merge tag placed on it by AussieEvil. That discussion has been taking place at List of Pokemon. Thus, TTN did not initiate a discussion on deletion, merging, or anything that can be construed as such. He commented on an ongoing discussion in a different forum.Kww (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

TTN posted prior to the recent tagging and discussion. TTN posted May 8.[22] It spurred a fair amount of discussion before the bold redirect.[23] Boldly redirected by the other editor May 9.[24] Merge tagged May 12.[25] Discussion started at the list article on May 12.[26] It is quite clear that TTN was the first acting party in the most recent action on that article. Vassyana (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know if I'm a little late here, but I've been following TTN's actions lately because of his discussions with WikiProject Sega and I was wondering if this discussion here, which TTN started May 10th reopening a discussion he had started a couple months earlier (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sega/Archive_1#Sonic_the_Hedgehog_characters) violates his ArbCom sanctions as well. Although I am not an administrator, I have read the sanctions against TTN and I think this might be another violation that was not caught. It is a merger proposal that TTN has been trying to convince everyone to do for a couple of months now, though it has met with resistance. Thank you for your time, and I will check back here if you are willing to give your opinion about it. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 01:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, TTN's actions on the talk page do not, in any shape or form, violate his arbcom restrictions. You are in violation of both the blocking policy and the arbcom ruling. Your interpretation that he can't start a section heading is moronic. Further more, you block does absolutely nothing to stop him from making requests, which he is free to do so on his talk page or off-wiki. Unless the editors who are considering his arguments are also under restriction, nothing is being violated here. -- Ned Scott 04:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

And for the love of god, the entire point of his restriction was to make him take these issues to the talk page. The "request" part is undoubtedly referring to tagging an article for deletion or merging. -- Ned Scott 04:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

See my initial reply to Eusebeus above and SirFozzie below. He blatantly violated his ArbCom restrictions. Vassyana (talk) 04:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Review Requested

I have formally requested a review of your block at A/N. I think there are important principles here that require more general attention. Otherwise, I would have taken this up directly with you. Thanks for your help. Eusebeus (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you undo the block. A two week block for what would be a minor infraction, )even if it WAS an infraction, which it is not.. per this line from the ArbCom ruling.. "He is free to contribute on the talk pages") is way way way over the top. SirFozzie (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Just following up: Your block is unsupportable per the ArbCom terms, as follows: Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, for up to a week in the event of repeated violations. SirFozzie (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I would be mildly opposed to reducing the block duration to one week from the original block, but I would not make a fuss over it. Vassyana (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

He blatantly violated his ArbCom restriction.[27][28] Vassyana (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No he did not. Now I see that there's an open request to ArbCom to clarify this very thing that's been open multiple weeks without a response, and this block becomes less and less justifiable. I strongly sugggest you undo the block until such time as ArbCom clarifies this issue. (sorry, forgot to sign) SirFozzie (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

How in the world is that not a violation of his restriction? It clearly qualified under both the plain letter and obvious spirit of the restriction. Vassyana (talk) 05:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, I would support a reduction of TTN's block from 2 weeks to 1 week. After reading over the enforcement section again, I believe the phrase "up to a week" means the first five blocks should not exceed one week each. I believe TTN violated his restrictions on May 8 and May 11, but they could both be covered by a block of one week total. I realize though that blocks of escalating length are common. Those are my thoughts. What do you think? I also think the block needs to be logged at the case page. Regards, --Pixelface (talk) 08:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made an unblock proposal to TTN.[29] Vassyana (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

New boy stirring things

Sorry --Dweller (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologize. :) Crticism, feedback, suggestions and the like are always welcome. Vassyana (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

TTN

It looks like TTN met your conditions. You should probably unblock him now. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I just checked in. Thanks for the heads up. He's unblocked. Vassyana (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request for you perhaps:

User talk:Yaf. Since you unblocked his "partner in crime" I thought maybe you'd like to handle him as well. It only seems fitting that you handle them both in the same manner. Since you are more familiar with the situation, its your call. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I made a similar statement and offer to Yaf. Vassyana (talk) 06:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lectures

Todays lecture is starting! The topic is "How source experts judge source reliability" and the speaker is DGG. The meeting location for setup is #wikipedia-en-lectures on irc.freenode.net. The lecture will be given over skype. Contact Filll2 or kim_bruning to be invited to the lecture chat also.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you should look

I think you should look at these.

[30]

and

[31]

Thanks. Tell me if I needed to do anything different, aside from being more careful about how the summary could be mis-interpreted. I believe my actual edit merely reflected what the source concluded, and thus was a necessary change. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, and this [32] ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to go for now, but I will look over this in-depth this evening. Vassyana (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Not all of the consensus building we went through relative to that "attrubution and call-it-pseudoscience" thing is on the parapsychology talk page. Some of it is on the FRINGE talk page, [33] relating to the new section [34] SA has edit warred into FRINGE without consensus. If you're really going to investigate contact Seicer and Nealparr. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 18:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither of you should be extrapolating broad claims from particular sources and both of you should be ashamed of your conduct in relation to FRINGE. Regarding your participation in FRINGE, your snarky and close to pointy talk page posts are distinctly not helpful, and are not going to help anyone "see the light" despite your intent. Vassyana (talk) 10:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't answer you. Wrote 4 drafts each entirly different. Don't think this is working. See this diff [35]. If you want to talk to me, send email. But I've already said everything, really. Basically, you admins need to do something. You told me I didn't have to put up with this shit, but I do. I've basically stopped editing, even though I'm pretty good when I actually get to edit [36]. Thank you for assuming good faith that I wanted to get people to see the light. I was actually just there to try and help several NPOV editors to block a couple of dedicated POV pushers who will never see any NPOV light. The attempt failed, but I don't really think I made anything worse. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

see? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sun Tzu

I noticed you made several major changes to the article in the past few days. Someone has reverted your changes. I thought I should let you know and maybe the two of you can discuss these changes, since I'm not completely aware what you have changed and what they have changed. Gary King (talk) 00:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Potential_sockfarm. Vassyana (talk) 13:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Who are these "Plenty of people"

On my talk page, you mentioned that "If you run into disagreements you cannot resolve, there are plenty of people waiting to help." User:SaltyBoatr has re-started his POV pushing again on the Right to arms article, putting in information that is exactly the opposite of what a cited source actually states, much as before. By my making 1 revert and reporting him to 3RR previously when this happened last time (for his making 4 reverts and for his POV-pushing edit warring the last time) I was blocked for 100 hours on a charge of "long term edit warring". So, I cannot revert - even 1 time - his insertion of false material, nor, apparently, can I even report him for edit warring, else I will be blocked again for "long term edit warring". So, who are these "plenty of people"? Is there anyway to address this issue? (Essentially, we are talking about an equivalent to the Michael Bellesiles academic fraud case on Wikipedia.) Thanks. Yaf (talk) 22:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I have warned him.[37] Edits like that are not acceptable. However, you also need to tone down the oppositional tone a bit and approach things with a more cooperative attitude. For example, revert warring over an article tag is just beyond the pale and only serves to escalate already heated situations. While some of the disagreements between you are purely just plain old disagreements over content, there comes a point where inaccurately representing the sources or pushing for content beyond the sources is clearly a behavioral issue. Vassyana (talk) 04:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Strangely enough, SaltyBoatr and I were once Wikipedia friends, under his old WP name, and we edited some of the same articles successfully for several years with no issues whatsoever, while achieving balance. Then, he changed to a pseudonym instead of his real name, starting pushing an extreme POV not supported by cites, and the problems started. As for the edit warring over tags, SaltyBoatr started using edit warring over tags as a means to get controversial articles fully locked to prevent further editing, as a way to game the system. After this went on for over a year, I finally felt that his keeping articles perpetually marked as {{POV}} and locked against editing and his never agreeing to compromise on any mediation, 3O, or RfC was counter to the longterm improvement of articles on Wikipedia, and I finally actively started resisting his POV pushing. Yes, arguing over a POV tag is stupid, but it was simply to address his gaming of the system in its totality. Our goal as editors should be to improve WP, not to insert an extreme POV unsupported by any source, edit war against the community, request page protection, and then never ever agree to any mediation outcome to unlock the article. (Unfortunately, ArbCom didn't take the User:SaltyBoatr case.) Incidentally, he has also used his other WP identity to edit war on the same articles, too, with the most recent edits from his other identify (albeit on another article) being made less than two weeks ago. These "gaming the system" behaviours and block evasions need to be stopped in their entirety. Again, thank you. Yaf (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting 3O at Drug policy of Sweden

Hi, I writing to you for advice on a potentially conflicted 3O. I responded to a 3O request yesterday and have been trying to help sort through a thorny issue at Drug policy of Sweden. What initially looked like a dispute between two editors is turning out to involve a third, who I just realized is a legasy from a recent 3O. My thought is that this is now beyond the scope of 3O and that I should recommend other options. I have three questions: (1) am I right, (2) is it appropriate for me to recommend Med-Cab specifically, and (3) is it ethical for me to remain as part of the next level of resolution as an interested party, or should I recuse myself in the best interest of 3O? Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Yes.
2. I don't see why not, though it can't hurt to mention other options or point to WP:DR.
3. It's not terribly common, but also not at all unusual, for editors to become an involved party by way of offering a GA review, third opinion, RfC response, or so on. Sometimes this involvement is as a neutral party trying to help guide people towards agreement and sometimes it is as an interested editor. I don't see why it should be an ethical problem for you to participate in further article discussions and dispute resolution.

Bear in mind that's all my opinion, but there it is, for what it's worth. Vassyana (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you. Yes it is an opinion, but it seems that you are among our most experienced in the field of dispute resolution. It seems that if 3O editors get a reputation for becoming involved beyond the initial dispute people might become afraid to use the service. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Cramer and Olsen

Did you read the Cramer and Olson source? I did, and they state (pg 2): "Previous scholarly examination of the phrase “bear arms” in English language documents published around the time of the Constitution does show almost entirely military uses or contexts." That being the case, my edit[38], does not provide commentary beyond the source at all. Am I missing something? please explain. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That snippet is in fact part of the source's criticism contradicting previous scholarly research. You'll note the very next sentence: "But this is perhaps reflective of a selection bias problem." Nowhere do Cramer and Olson "confirm," as you claim, "that the term 'bear arms' in government documents overwhelmingly involved usages related to military service." You further claim that "the study was expanded to non-governmental documents." This is a blatant misrepresentation of their research in which they expand the corpus of English language documents to both non-governmental and additional governmental documents. Your claim that Cramer and Olson only expand "to non-governmental documents" is patently false, misleading, and does not "reflect the conclusions of the source's author(s)." --tc2011 (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What you dismiss as a 'snippet' is in fact a direct quote from the source, which formed the WP:RS basis for my edit. My mention of 'non-governmental' also comes directly from the source which states: "If you look in databases consisting almost entirely of government documents, it should not be a surprise that most of the uses will be governmental in nature. Searching more comprehensive collections of English language works published before 1820 shows that there are a number of uses that are clearly individual, and have nothing to do with military service." You may disagree with me, but regardless, my edit is based on a direct reading of that source. Therefore I ask: "Am I missing something?" SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just the context, neutral point of view, and the facts. You have badly twisted the meaning of their paper. Please revert your Right to arms edit that is contrary to all these, and restore the neutral wording that was there previously. This is not about mere disagreement, it is about consistency with the source, contrary to Wikipedia policies. Yaf (talk) 11:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Help required

Hi, I am trying to develop Anekantavada as a featured article candidate and require your help for additional contributions and improvements. I have got it peer reviewed by Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) and Alastair Haines (talk · contribs) and require additional independent opinion. If you have sometime, I would appreciate your help in this matter. Thanks.--Anish (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

You accused me of violating WP:NOR here[39]. That is a serious accusation. Could you tell me if you read my sourcing, the Cramer and Olson paper, before you made your accusation? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it has been fairly clearly explained, but I will provide some additional feedback. However, I would first like to note that regardless of the NOR violation, it was pushing a controversial edit in a long standing dispute for which you and another person were recently blocked. That alone would be sufficient to justify further sanctions for disruption. That being said, this edit did commit original research. You present it as though government documents nigh exclusively discuss military service and that some few other sources provide other uses. The thrust of the paper itself is to argue that the historical roots of a right to bear arms is based in a broad usage of the right, including far more than military service, strongly ingrained in the common law and legal foundations of the United States. Avoiding arguments over the wording being cited, it's clearly an acute misuse of the source (and probably original research) to use it in such a fashion as to make it appear to support an opposite conclusion. To make a comparison, it would not be acceptable to selectively (and/or inaccurately) cite a paper that makes a forceful argument for special relativity to argue against (or using a phrasing implying invalidity of) special relativity. It is no more acceptable on the topic of bearing arms. Vassyana (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You neglected to actually answer my question. Also, I guess, that determining "the thrust" of the Cramer and Olson paper depends on the reading, but in good faith when I read that paper I reach a different conclusion that you did. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I was attempting to avoid being drawn into arguments of minutiae. Regardless, let's address your edit:[40]

The paper does not purport to "confirm" any such claim. On the contrary, the paper puts forward the possibility of selection bias for such claims from previous sources. It does say that it is "unsurprising" that government documents discuss governmental functions and uses. However, the paper also makes it clear that "military service" is not the whole of this discussion. The paper does not say that the scope was simply expanded to non-governmental documents. It states the search was more comprehensive and casting it as does your edit is extremely dishonest. Commentaries on the Laws of England can hardly be cast as distinct from government usage, for example, as it was 'and is considered the authoritative source on the state of Anglo-American common law in the late 18th century. Indeed, it is even cited by the United States Supreme Court for such purposes. Additionally, the paper makes it further clear that the broad interpretation was the standard of common law at the time. One can hardly state that common law considerations are independent from governmental concerns.

These are just a few points that demonstrate the inappropriate use of the source. The edit on a very fundamental level commits original research, cherrypicking and grossly distorting the source to advance a position. If you earnestly cannot distinguish sufficiently between the correct and incorrect use of sources in an area that you hold a strong interest in (which is very common and quite human), then I would strongly recommend editing unrelated topics to take advantage of your strengths unhindered by bias. Vassyana (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't asking to discuss the meaning of the Cramer paper, and I strongly disagree with your opinion and your accusation of bad faith, but I won't engage that discussion here on your talk page. I am questioning the appearance that you are taking sides in a content dispute. It appears that your criticism of my edit, and your tacit approval of this revert by Yaf has a poor appearance. Taking sides may not be your intent, and that is why I am asking. In any case your conduct has the appearance that you have taken Yaf's side in the content dispute, as Yaf has asserted here. You may want to clear up this appearance of impropriety, as I suspect that you did not actually intend it. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

DanaUllman again

Despite your earlier warnings and clarification of the terms of his topic ban, Dana has continued to use user pages to attempt to circumvent this ban, this time by advocating the publication of a page in a users sandbox, to which he himself had added references to homoeopathy[41][42]. Brunton (talk) 09:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Vassyana (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Dana is blocked.[43] I posted a note on the proposed decision talk page.[44] Vassyana (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

See my question on the case page. FloNight♥♥♥ 02:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! For some reason the case page didn't show up on my watchlist. Vassyana (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

To clarify: the two diffs I linked to showing Dana adding references to homoeopathy to the Harris Coulter biography were both made before the start of the topic ban: I included them to show that he must have known that the article was homoeopathy-related when (after the topic ban was in place) he advocated publication. Brunton (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

My understanding was this was the topic ban violation. The other diffs show it was a continuation of previous advocacy. Did I miss something, or is that spot on? Vassyana (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, spot on. My misunderstanding - I was concerned that it might be being viewed as three violations, not one. Sorry for any confusion. Brunton (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No sorries needed. I was the one who was not clear in my messages. Vassyana (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reconsidered this block since I didn't realise that the edit to the draft article was before the ban. Would you consider warning him about this, rather than blocking him? I've checked his contributions and all his edits to articles and article talkpages did stop once the ban started. Anyway, its up to you. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I will unblock him if he will adhere fully to the topic ban.[45] Vassyana (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't see him doing any damage to be honest. Not when he's under so much scrutiny. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)