User talk:Vassyana/Archive009

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Alice Bailey[edit]

Vassyana, a new editor of the Alice Bailey article has initiated an RfC [1]. Would you be willing to look at the discussion and comment? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi Vassyana, User:Jossi mentioned the other day that you and he had done some work on getting Laozi to GA. I also saw your earlier GA review of Prem Rawat, an article that I've been spending time on recently. I (self-)nominated Osho for GA yesterday and wondered if you might be interested in doing the review, or have a read-through and provide improvement suggestions? Cheers, Jayen466 21:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You are too kind[edit]

Thank you so much, your thoughts are most appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

On FAs (reply)[edit]

I've been worrying away at it for some time. I don't have any particularly helpful ideas yet, unfortunately.

What I have come to conclude is that our current method - "rewarding" individual editors with some form of status for "taking an article" to FA - is part of the problem; with the best will in the world, having a particular individual or like-minded group of individuals working intensively on an article for a fortnight doesn't aid in ensuring the use of a multitude of perspectives and sources. We're all amateurs, but we aim for results superior to individual professionals through the aggregation of perspectives; the way that FAs are managed seems to work at cross-purposes with that basic mechanism. I also fear that MoS-obsession (I stopped observing FACs a few years ago after one particularly vicious and borderline-incomprehensible squabble over the exact form of citation templates, or sub-headings, or something of that sort) tends to obscure actual questions of content.

If there's a solution, it probably would incorporate artificially elongating the process. Relata refero (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm off to do a GA review now, in the hope that it will give me some ideas. Relata refero (talk) 18:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


I have not named you as a party, as you have not been involved recently, but given your early intervention with the GA review, you may want to state your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Prem Rawat. If you think that you rather be named as a party, please let me know. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems as though ArbCom will accept the case. I will present evidence and take limited participation in the discussion when the case is opened, after I have some time to collect my thoughts and some diffs. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Deontological ethics
LaVeyan Satanism
Christianity Explained
Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses
Prophetic Christianity
Folk Christianity
List of Muslim Christianity scholars
Criticisms of socialism
Robert Jungk
Chancellor (ecclesiastical)
Narrative criticism
The Christian Century
Christian worship
Western Christianity
Tao Yin
Peter Gandy
First Satanic Church
International Churches of Christ
Virtue ethics
Bible prophecy
Dialectical monism
Spiritual desertion
Moral absolutism
Add Sources
Ethics in the Bible
Christianity by country
Names of God
John Naisbitt
Philosophy of education
Five Classics
Comparing Eastern and Western religious traditions

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.(

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocking consensus, analysis[edit]

Here's a big image made by User:Kevin Murray:

The normal consensus process is on Chart 1. Some people, however, use a modified process, at Chart 2. (Chart 3 and Chart 4 may not be relevant today.)

Basically, Chart 2 introduces just 2 really new concepts. The first is that large changes should be discussed first; the second is that it introduces a minor bias towards the status quo: "changes should not happen too quickly". If you say it in english, that sounds fairly harmless, right? People think it is a good trade off between efficiency and "safety".

But a closer look reveals that that is not the case! If you actually plot the flowchart, you find that when you modify process thusly, you can get stuck in an infinite loop. Consensus might never be reached. (Flowchart 2 has an infinite loop at "is the result accepted"->"should process continue"->"discuss at talk, 3O, VP, RFC"--->"is the result accepted" )

In reality such loops are not really infinite, as we are dealing with human beings here. At some point in time, one or more parties get worn down and burn out, and just walk away. :-/

Another interesting thing is that in chart 2, several meatball:ExpandScope methods are used ... in the middle of that same loop.

Sure. I think that one or two steps of ExpandScope once in a while might be a part of your normal everyday meatball:HealthyConflict.

But repeated scope expansion in a tight infinite loop? That sounds like a recipe for disaster. And guess what? Interestingly, that seems to be the pattern you see in all sorts of high profile wikidrama. :-)

So by simple systems analysis using flowcharts, we can already predict that certain simple, reasonable looking changes to the consensus process might actually be responsible for a large number of the unhealthy conflict interactions between established users.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Nifty! Some food for thought there. It does some to indicate where some of the logjam comes into play. As a thought, the "standard process" can be used as an excuse to play mum and pop (venue shopping), which can certainly add to a decline of good faith and to a growth of acrimony. This does not fully account for intransigence and obstruction. However, it certainly seems to point towards some tools which accommodate such ends. Definitely something for the mind to chew. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Indian Religions[edit]

Even after agreeing to consensus, User:IAF is back to his usual mode violating the consensus and the WP:3RR here. --Anish (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig and "dab" seem to be handling the situation just fine. I will keep an eye on the article to head off any future edit wars, but the editing conflict seems over for now and others are handling the situation. Vassyana (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks... as far as the article is concerned, Dab handled it well. But no one is doing anything about the abusive language of IAF "Jackass, stupid edits et all". Check this out. --Anish (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Informal mediation on Bosnian War article[edit]

Hello, I see that you have protected the Bosnian War article. I have suggested some form of dispute resolution[2] to User:Nirvana77, which he seems to agree with[3]. I'm not sure whether informal mediation would work here or if we should go directly to ArbCom. What is your suggestion? RegardsOsli73 (talk) 09:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

A good first step would be to request a third opinion to get an outside view on the matter. You should also ask for some outside opinions and expert assistance from the military history WikiProject. It's an active project with a solid reputation for common sense and high quality. A neutral outside opinion and some participation from members of a well-reputed relevent project can help bring a balance of perspective and put the article on track. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


I've started drafting a user conduct RfC that you might be interested in here. There's a lot of evidence to locate, sift through and present, so I think it will take awhile to get it put together. If you'd like to participate, please feel free to do so. Cla68 (talk) 06:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, now that is ambitious. Relata refero (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


Could you do me a favour and look over Two Witnesses? My cruft-alert is beeping like mad, but I think I need some advice with this one. Obviously the reference and the related mythologising and interpretation is notable and encyclopaedic, but am I wrong in supposing that this particular article contains material more suited for many, many others (Christian Zionism, America-Israel relations, Millenarianism, Postdispensationalism (?)), and a large amount of OR-through-sythesis? It has the classic look of the latter, with lots and lots of references, except for the crucial points. Relata refero (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I will look over it a bit more this evening, as I am currently a bit busy IRL. However, taking a brief look, I immediately got a "red flag" impression from the lede being comprised mostly of a large quote from the Bible (as opposed to following WP:LEAD). Vassyana (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I've had the time to read over it and it's most assuredly a SYN'd up mess. Outside of taking the ax to it and starting over again from a stub (Gordian style editing), I'm not sure how to untangle the clusterfun. I'll read over it again and check some sources on Questia and see what I can do to help reform that poor article. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


Hi Vassyana,

At Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Evidence#Jossi's alleged COI you presented an analysis of evidence presented in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 22#Jossi COI diffs.

Since this is primarily Analysis of evidence I wonder how you would feel about moving that analysis to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat/Workshop#Analysis of evidence?

Anyway, I'd like to comment on the analysis you presented, but don't want to burden the /Evidence page with that: the section on the /Workshop page seems more appropriate for me to relate to the analysis. How do you think? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to think the evidence page is the appropriate place. The COIN thread was not raised as other parts of evidence (that I noticed). The presentation and analysis of previous discussions is usually typical ArbCom evidence. To my knowledge, replies to evidence (barring long discussions) are usually placed on the evidence page. However, I would welcome the input of a clerk or arbitrator regarding the proper placement of my comments and diffs. Vassyana (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Tx for the reply.
I'd welcome clerk/arbitrator input too, since I've little experience what the primary intended goals are of a "Analysis of evidence" section on a /Workshop page, compared to presenting evidence on the /Evidence page. I used the /Workshop section extensively now - no idea whether I'm heading the right way.
For me, the question was primarily: where do I present my views on the analysis you presented? Unless instructed otherwise, I'd prefer the /Workshop section, but thought I let you know first.
I'll mention this on the /Workshop talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Perfectly understandable. If an arb or clerk thinks my statements should be moved, that's quite alright. I am admittedly not as familiar with arbitration as other steps in the dispute resolution process, so it's entirely possible I placed the links and my comments in the wrong place. Please let me know if you receive feedback from a clerk or the arbs. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 16:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Prem Rawat assessment of sources[edit]

Feel free to add your evidence, but please take into account that I still think that you were nearly completely wrong in your assessment of the sources (Reender Kranenborg, Jan van der Lans, and Saul Levine). I have some sources to back up my opinion about them. I have to admit though that you were right that the "sermonizing" by Kranenborg (which was in a seperated section in Kranenborg's book) did not belong in the article Prem Rawat. Andries (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You are free to disagree and it's quite possible that I was wrong. :) Is there a particular place where the sources are being reviewed? Vassyana (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Alpha Phi Alpha brothers and Alpha Phi Alpha[edit]

Might want to semi these articles because banned user Mykungfu is constantly hitting these with new socks here, here, here, with the argument that Alpha Phi Alpha is the "oldest" living fraternity. Also, he uses proxies, too. That's why CU evidence is inconclusive in targeting him down. The reason that I am asking you to do this is 1.) I am not an admin 2.) I used to ask Mr. Darcy to take care of this, but he retired. :-( miranda 16:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


Thanks. Gwandoya requested and IP check, and confirmed that BicMacDad18 was a possible sockpuppet of banned user and prolific puppeteer User:EverybodyHatesChris. Thanks anyway. Nightscream (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what else there really is to do seeing that he's been checkusered here. I'm not sure if a "Possible" constitutes a ban. But thank you. Gwandoya Talk 01:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I sincerely apologize for my delay in responding. I hadn't checked on the MedCab talk page for a few days. My recommendation would be to raise the issue at WP:ANI or WP:SSP. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd love your assistance. Thanks so much for your time. I'd also like to note that the issue Gwandoya has brought in our argument (which is the issue she's brought up above and twice now on my user talk page) on the MedCab page is really an irrelevant one to that argument. The debate on that page has to do with an edit on the Coral Smith article. I am the one who brought the problem to MedCab because I didn't want to edit war with Nightscream over it, and I even titled the problem "Coral Smith article". If you see things differently, my apologies and I certainly thank for your willingness to help in this issue. BicMacDad18 (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


Kim Bruning said I might enjoy chatting with you (I know very little about the mediation cabal). Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 05:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

unprotect Bosnian war article[edit]

Hi, Nirvana77 and I seem to have worked out our differences on the Bosnian War article (see talk page). Could you please unprotect it? CheersOsli73 (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please be cautious in reverting and generous in discussing. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank's. While you're at it, could you please check User:Texwiller071, suspiciously like User:Grandy Grandy.Osli73 (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter[edit]

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


Your thinking is very close to my own - I think it very unlikely that a set of guidelines designed to write about advanced physics topics will work well for articles on the other end of the encyclopedia, and with two million articles there are an awful lot of other ends. To my mind, the original design of Wikipedia solved this problem organically - large discretion was granted to whomever was working on an article. They were told "cite sources, avoid original research, be NPOV, and be nice to each other," and turned loose. If their work sucked, well, more people would surely be along to fix it. Thus the overall structure and set of rules was broken up.

Over time, of course, people noticed trends of problems and we accumulated some rules that were meant to apply to all articles. And that was fine and needed - AfD is a great example of a rules-based editorial procedure that comes from the top instead of from the bottom. The problem is that this trend of top-down solutions has continued to snowball. Which, anyone who studies online communities would have guessed, so it's no surprise.

And there's no way to stop that - top-down solutions will continue to, often messily, be applied. The trick, to my mind, is to treat bottom-up thinking as a viral property of the system (which is how it originally worked - the wiki so naturally pushed bottom-up thinking that people's top-down instincts got effectively countered). That is, one pushes top-down rules that require bottom-up thinking to implement. Which is why, whenever I talk about policy, I argue for phrasings that include hedges, phrases like "common sense and local consensus must prevail," admissions that decisions are difficult and complex, etc - to jam the top-down policies up and force bottom-up processes to fill in the gaps.

But this involves a heavy measure of fighting against human nature, as top-down policies are much more comforting and much easier. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving articles[edit]

Is there a reason why the article Madrid (autonomous community) cannot be renamed/moved? Since the official name of the community is simply "Community of Madrid" (Comunidad de Madrid), I have proposed that the article be renamed in order to avoid the unnecessary parentheses. Since very few users edit that article I have received no response, so after waiting 10+ days, I decided to do it myself. However, I don't get the option of moving the article. Is it semi-protected in some way? Can it be unprotected? --the Dúnadan 22:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Can the article be moved to its official name (Community of Madrid)? It makes no sense to have the unnecessary parentheses if the community is referred to, in Spanish and English, simply as the "Community of Madrid".[4]. --the Dúnadan 03:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


I'm wondering how he got off (pardon the pun) without so much as a warning? xenocidic (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The IP Is blocked. Vassyana (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Gotcha. I was curious because I didn't see the usual block tag on his talk page. I'll check the block list next time. xenocidic (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

for reverting that BS on my utalk. 21655 ωhατ δo γoυ ωαητ? 23:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the smile. :) Vassyana (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

NOR discussion[edit]

Continuing from: Wikipedia talk:No original research#Actual proposed change. Both of your responses were intelligent and helpful. I would like to discuss this further, but I don't want to clutter up the policy page (at least until the discussion is more refined :-P). My main question remains. How would you distinguish between legitimate coverage of the "gap" and fluff or nonsense in the absence of editorial or professional authority? That is the question that needs to be answered, because it is the principal question that will arise in relation to policy and good practice. To clarify the "gap", how much obvious or nuts & bolts information is missing from textbooks and other introductory materials? Vassyana (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

My inclination remains to say that distinguishing that gap across two and a half million articles is an impossible task for a policy page, and to leave it, as we are obliged to by the foundation, to the wiki process - that is, to assume that, when directed to avoid novel synthesis, the given community of editors working on any given article will, in fact, be able to do so without a machine-readable guide to doing so. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The rules should not focus on examples, hard limits and mechanical benchmarks. The rules should focus on simply explaining what is meant by the principle. For example, the rules should answer: "What does X-POLICYNAME mean? What is Y-POLICYNAME?" They should not answer: "How do I apply X to Y subject? What examples are there of POLICY-Z?" The latter questions should be asked in article talk pages, RfC, and other wiki/community-based avenues. Essentially, rules are intended to give direction with common sense and consensus determining its individual application.
Would you agree with that statement? Vassyana (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with that. One difficulty that comes up on the policy talk pages is that each editor has a different genre of articles in mind, and so there is a lot of misinterpretation between editors. That can make it hard to talk about general principles.
I have been thinking about your original question above, and I hope to be able to write a response soon. I need time to work out some details for myself first, and think of just the right examples to avoid leading the conversation into dead ends. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for putting thought into this. Vassyana (talk) 04:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that summary is very much on target. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Cervical cap[edit]

To start out with, I really appreciate your time in offering a third opinion on the merge proposal at cervical cap. Unfortunately, I do not believe your response supported either side of the dispute; that a definition needs to be supported by reliable sources is agreed on by both parties. I believe I have provided reliable sources that some medical professionals refer to this device as a cervical cap. The other editor has provided reliable sources that, at the time Prentif was the only cervical cap available in the United States, United States sources used the term "cervical cap" to refer only to Prentif; because of the recent introduction of FemCap to the U.S., and to avoid U.S.-centrism in the cervical cap article, I do not believe these sources are reliable for the current definition of the term "cervical cap". I was hoping from the third opinion to receive a judgment of which sources were reliable to support which definition.

Also, the issues coming up on that talk page are becoming much more complicated than just the merge. While I would be happy to see your further involvement in the discussion if you are interested, I am planning on posting a notice at the doctor's mess to get a couple more people involved on the cervical cap article. Hopefully that will help a consensus to form instead of the one vs. one situation currently there. Thank you again for taking the time to read the disagreement and offer your opinion. LyrlTalk C 23:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Jihad watch MedCab[edit]

Hi, just checking that you are still working on mediating this case. Another editor User:Bless sins has now indicated their willingness to join. Whilst there is no great urgency, I do feel a desire to see this mediation progressing. Hoping you are still committed to being mediator. SmithBlue (talk) 03:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for any perceived delay. I am taking a little time to familiarize myself with the subject and the article's history. One thing I immediately noticed was a long quiet period on the talk page, and then a very quick movement into dispute resolution. I will be posting to the article talk tonight or tomorrow afternoon. Thanks for understanding. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 03:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian War[edit]

Hi Vassyana. I've seen you protected and unprotected Bosnian War article. Can you protect it again or allow just registered users to edit, because, there is an anon from Republika Srpska who deleted ([5], [6]) a good portion of the article and drastically changed some sentences not supported by the sources presented in the article which can lead to false conclusion. Šljkljkž (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


#wikipedia-en-lectures @ 15:00 UTC today, yay. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Jim Torbett
Allied health professions
Christianity Explained
List of astrologers
Robert Jungk
Peter Gandy
Economic materialism
Christianity in Albania
Tao Yin
Chancellor (ecclesiastical)
The Christian Century
List of Muslim Christianity scholars
Christian worship
Pundit (India)
First Satanic Church
Virtue ethics
Prayer Mountain
Just War
Folk Christianity
Primitive Apostolic Christianity (Sabbatarian)
Add Sources
John Naisbitt
Logical possibility
Homosexuality and Buddhism
Five Classics

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar time[edit]


This may not be exactly what you wanted, but your handling of 10 Third opinion requests tonight deserves recognition. Please feel free to replace it with the barnstar of your choice, or remove my rave at will :-)
  — Athaenara 08:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the juggler better than a barnstar. :) Thanks for the kinds words! You should know though, I didn't answer all ten, as a couple had been answered but not removed from the list. Vassyana (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome, glad you liked it, happy I got it right. — Athaenara 09:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


I have posted a reply to your third opinion, and pointed out that the reference-note you criticised was originally added by Peter Jackson. It is a quote from an interview for a magazine. Indeed not very credibly. The other notes you didn't comments on are from review articles and textbooks. Those were deleted by Peter Jackson. Greetings, Sacca 10:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

please revert[edit]

please revert your removal of my reinsertion at Chiropractic? I am a neutral observer to the page, I came and reviewed the section, saw it was NPOV, and well sourced. There was no valid reason to remove that content. Thus, my revert was reverting vandalism, something that is OK to do when a page is protected. SWATJester Son of the Defender 16:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it is the very content in dispute in the edit war,[7] I am not comforting with restoring your edit. However, I'm quite flexible and fallible, so if another admin feels it is appropriate, they should feel free to correct my error. Vassyana (talk) 17:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Vassyana, I completely agree with Swatjester here and I'm actually the main contributor to the section involved. The edit summaries by suggesting an NPOV violation is bogus. To revert Swatjester, who like he said, was a neutral observer, was more fanning of the flames. The section is well referenced and is NPOV. There is some obstruction going on by some editors, who incidentally happen to be medical doctors, who do not want to see a thorough, well-sourced and long overdue section of chiropractic scope of practice. CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your point, but the article was protected for that very dispute. I do believe it's protected in the Wrong Version. However, making edits under protection to endorse one version or another is certainly more inflammatory (in my opinion) than reverting back to the protected version. I'm sorry if you disagree, but hope you understand. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC) Read this section. There are problems with the current text. It is not NPOV and it is not well sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Quack, I cannot help but feel you are wikistalking me now. Please, don't do this. Baiting me at my talk page isn't helpful either. To insinuate that its not NPOV and poorly sourced is lamentable and proves my point that you'll do and say almost anything to obstruct. We had 4 editors agree the section was good, Eubulides triggers a revert war and goes onto making a cherry picked list of very minor grievances that could have easily been added or corrected in the article without all the ensuing drama. It's simply more of the same [[WP:TEND|tendentious] and obstructionist editing by medical physicians on the chiropractic page. CorticoSpinal (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
This is also a content dispute, so it's not all that simple. Unfortunately, CorticoSpinal (who made the original inclusion) and one of his IPs violated his 1RR parole, which was one of the conditions for unblocking his indef block. Due caution needs to be exercised here. Edit warring, especially to protect one's own additions, can easily get one into trouble. I'm not suggesting that CorticoSpinal be indef blocked again for this violation, but it shouldn't have happened and this is a reminder to keep in mind that the ice is thin. -- Fyslee / talk 05:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of religious sources[edit]

Vassyana, I know that you have participated in many discussion on this topic; so can you look at this latest iteration of the perennial question here and especially critique my summary ? Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you got it just right, as far as my opinion goes. Vassyana (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Please see Talk:Nasr Al-Madhkur. Thank you. -- Slacker (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


Today (Apr 20th), around 15:00 UTC! Possibly on Skype, but certainly on IRC (#wikipedia-en-lectures on freenode)! I don't actually know about the Skype details... Message me on Skype (xavexgoem) about that, if you have it (no harm in getting it, either), and then maybe by that time I'll have a clue :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Covert incest[edit]

Hey. I saw that the editors over at this page relisted their discussion for a third opinion. It seems that whatever opinion you gave on the page turned into another argument. Do you want to take another look at it, or do you want a fresh set of eyes to take a look? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

A fresh set of eyes would help. Vassyana (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see I stepped into a situation that was already being tended to. I hope my comments were helpful rather than the reverse. Vassyana, I got the sense that the proposal of one sentence in the overview plus two or three sentences in a Criticism section would be acceptable to all parties, so long as it was neutral and didn't carry undue weight. I'll have to agree with the general sentiment that it didn't fit well in the description section. These editors do seem to work well with each other. I think in this case you might reconsider your opposition to a separate section since this criticism is legitimate. It just seems to be having trouble finding a home. Peace. - Tom Mmyotis (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

can you please help?[edit]

I'm terribly sorry to trouble you but there is a fellow who calls himself IAF and he is causing difficulties on the article dharma. He was doing the same thing a few months ago. He is adding incorrect information and removing valuable parts of the introduction. I have been contributing to this article for some time. We managed to get a B rating in the peer review. IAF seems to have a history of disruptive behaviour. If you can help in any way your kindness would be much appreciated. Langdell (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

want to give a lecture?[edit]

Wikipe-tan meditating deeply upon the mysteries of Wikipedia. Aum...

O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Trouble maker! :) Any particular topic you're fishing for? Vassyana (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You wouldn't happen to know anything about mediation, would you? Or did you have any ideas yourself? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC) such as how to be a troublemaker and get away with it? O:-)
Um ... *brushes a couple of userboxes under the carpet* ... I have no idea what this "mediation" you speak of means, did you mean the meditation? :) Vassyana (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC) I could do one on that topic. When should it be prepped for?
Meditation might be quite useful to calm the mind, and to help one assume good faith. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Next week Sunday is already possible, if you like, or, if you'd like to prepare or get a mic/headset or so, any Sunday will do :-) .
The Sunday after next would actually be perfect if that's good by you folks. Vassyana (talk) 01:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Cool! --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources[edit]

Thanks Vassyana, I managed to integrate all three sources you put up quotes for into the covert incest page. If you want to review, it's this set of diffs; I wouldn't mind a review or feedback, the Okami reference probably reads a bit awkwardly and may be excessively long. I understand if you would prefer to remain neutral and not comment. Thanks, WLU (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ...[edit]

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
... for the formatting help on Talk:Osho! A labour of love. :-)

Jayen466 00:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kindness. :) I wandered by, and besides the title formatting issue, I could not follow the conversation easily. So, I just went ahead and reformatted for reading ease without changing the content of the post. Vassyana (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Help needed[edit]

Hi Vassyana - need your help as an uninvolved admin/third opinion/MedCab -

I'm having trouble with the page Pete Wheeler. The page is a BLP - Wheeler's an artist I knew a few years ago when he lived near me (I work as an arts reviewer). The article is being edited by someone who seems to be connected with his current gallery in Berlin. The edits are best described as unencyclopedic, adding items directly from several gallery websites and quite a sizable amount of OR interpretation of the art. I've reverted, or at least edited the material into a more encyclopedic form, several times, but the other editor simply edits it right back the way it was before, with copyvios, peacock words, OR, and advertorialising all included. It's complicated by the fact that the other editor (or editors) is/are using both a username and anon IPs. Since I'm involved I can't do anything like protect the page, and since I know Wheeler I might not be totally impartial; it'd be useful to get some non-involved admin help. There's dialogue relating to the dispute at Talk:Pete Wheeler, User talk: Grutness, User talk: Edieco and User talk: Grutness...wha? 00:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Christian[edit]

I note that you added a Protected Page template to Christian, but a user with a low edit count (Special:Contributions/Fuxu) was still able to vandalise it. Please would you check whether protection is actually in place? - Fayenatic (talk) 17:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection only prevent access by IP users and accounts that not autoconfirmed. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 02:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I had thought there was a longer history requirement for editing semi-prot pages; now I know! - Fayenatic (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


They are today (27 April 2008) at 15:00 UTC. Here is the skype link & here's the IRC link. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Response from Dana Ullman and a Request for a Re-evaluation of your actions[edit]

Can you read my response to the accusations against me here.[8]. I would also like you to consider re-evaluating your decision. DanaUllmanTalk 03:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I will certain review the situation again. To be fair, I reconsider after taking a few hours of off-wiki time. This will allow me to see with a fresher perspective, rather than simply gut responding to the perception currently in mind. Thank you for your polite request and patience. Vassyana (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I warned Dana for bad faith assumptions on his ANI post. Please review my warning. Notice that I also commented on Dana's post. You might want to ask other editors on whether Dana has repeated on his ANI post the exact same type of misrepresentations that got him banned on the first place. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Much to all of our dismay, no non-involved sysops have provided insight on what to do here. Based on my newest response, I hope that you will consider unblocking me until you are more certain that I am the one who deserves it. My point here is that I continue to be civil, and I continue to provide RS and notable information. If I would have archived active discussion without getting consensus beforehand and I would have added information to the article before there was recent discussion on the Talk pages, I would have been blocked a long time ago. However, when other editors do this, they not only have gotten away with this bullying, they blame me for being disruptive. Because you are uninvolved, I really am interested in knowing your evaluation of the situation. DanaUllmanTalk 22:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Dana, you REALLY, REALLY need to just move on and stop badgering Vassyana about this. Please, just move on. Baegis (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Baegis' statement above of typical of his bullying, and despite being warned about his uncivility, he is not creating a climate of collaboration. Even before this drama blew up, I appealed to Baegis in a friendly way.[9] That said, it is not my intention to badger you at all, and I hope that it does not seem that way. DanaUllmanTalk 03:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I tried to read Dana's contributions. I did not find anything really problematic. He suggested that a notable study CHEST about Potassium_dichromate should be included. Dana is somehow passionate but he is not wrong, tenditious or uncivil.I think that if you take the time to seriously investigate the actions of the majority of the editors you might change your mind. Best.--44Elise (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Vassyana, please see my comments on 44Elise[10]. I'm still not sure about asking for a RFCU myself --Enric Naval (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

please help[edit]

I am being attacked again[11] and again.[12] QuackGuru 06:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) This is not an attack. It is an allegation accompanied by a request for investigation and discussion. I will politely ask Fylsee to redact his comments. On a related note, I implore you to reconsider your reaction and lack of action regarding my requests on your talk page. Vassyana (talk) 06:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Another attack.[13] QuackGuru 06:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not an attack, for the same reasons as above. On the contrary, such requests for review and investigation are the very purpose of ANI. Vassyana (talk) 06:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I want nothing to do with the noticeboard. Please delete all my comments if you want. QuackGuru 06:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[14] I don't think Ned is right. QuackGuru 11:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
We have had our differences.[15][16][17] QuackGuru 11:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I need your help again. This comment is extremely uncivil. This is a repeat offender and he continues to poke me with a stick. I am discussing things on the talk page and explaining that some editors have blindly reverted formatted references. Formatting a reference is not controversial. Blindly reverting the formatted reference is what is controversial and unproductive. QuackGuru 03:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand your comment on my talk page. I am still the same person. QuackGuru 06:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with QG. He is unchanged as explained on my talk page. He has always been "polite" in a very condescending way, even when disagreeing and making it sound as if a bit of sugar would make it more palatable. It's actually quite offensive when you are the recipient. Honesty would be preferable instead of an obvious display of not even attempting to undertand ones opponent. That's what I've observed for (how many) years(?) now. -- Fyslee / talk 06:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC) He basically restored the same similar uncivil comment. QuackGuru 06:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't confuse honest advice and disagreement with incivility. If you can't take it, then reconsider your editing pattern. -- Fyslee / talk 06:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Other editors have improved references without discussion and I am being heckled at for discussing the improvements. Please delete that nonsense off the chiropractic talk page. Nothing is going well at the chiro talk anyhow. Text is being deleted without any explanation. Entire sections are missing (Effectiveness) from the article. There is a bunch of oudated studies remaining in the article and newer studies have a hard time finding there way into mainspace. QuackGuru 07:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
You are always welcome to discuss this kind of thing on my talk page. Vassyana has better things to do than hold your hand. -- Fyslee / talk 07:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC) This version is nonsense too. Please delete both versions. Why is Fyslee directing these comments at the talk page at me when other editors have made ref improvements too. A ref improvement is not controversial. QuackGuru 07:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Please help. Please delete that nonsense off the talk page. QuackGuru 07:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
What part of my last comment above don't you understand? I'm done here. It's not nice of you to use Vassyana's talk page to carry on your battles. -- Fyslee / talk 07:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Read this comment. He can't stand me so that explains his heckling at me. Fyslee, please stop. QuackGuru 07:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Vassyana, I have responded to your comment. QuackGuru 16:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
For the record, Vassyana thanked the repeat offender after he restored most of the uncivil comments. Hmm. QuackGuru 04:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is more heckling by the repeat offender. Draw your own conclusions. QuackGuru 06:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

McCready thread[edit]

Hello Vassyana, I believe there may have been a misunderstanding between you and QuackGuru. I am guessing that by "opposition" you meant his opposition to a topic ban for McCready. But since he was obviously very preoccupied about being attacked it was natural for him to read it as opposition against Jim Butler's comment. Reading his reactions with that interpretation in mind, they make a bit more sense, and it becomes clear that his "harassment" edit summary probably doesn't refer to you at all. Instead, it was a short answer to your question. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah! That would make sense. If that is accurate, I should drop a note for him pointing to your comment, offering clarification for what I meant and offering to rephrase my comments. Vassyana (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Done.[18] Vassyana (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I knew before I commented on the noticeboard I would be heckled for objecting to the ban. I should think twice before commenting on the NB. I have evidence there are "repeat offenders" who were making uncivil comments against me. I could let it go or post the evidence at the NB. I get attacked and I see no blocks. Repeat offenders should get blocked. I am not interested in discussing this further. Is Wikipedia the most uncivil place on the internet? QuackGuru 11:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
While there's always room for improvement, the overall level of civility on Wikipedia is remarkably high compared to other areas of teh Internets where controversial issues are discussed. MastCell Talk 17:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Things are getting more and more uncivil on Wikipedia. Editing the chiropractic article is becoming a very hostile environment. For example, personal attacks and misleading accusations by known chiropractor true believers has continued.[19][20][21] I should be allowed to edit the chiropractic article in peace and have productive conversations on the talk page. The article is a war zone and the disruptive editors need to be banned. Read the talk page of the chiropractic article. It is obvious who the problem editors are! QuackGuru 18:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Just remember that it takes two to tango. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not tangoing. Got it? QuackGuru 19:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Vassyana - With regard to the proposed Mccready topic-ban (which I think is appropriate), please let me know if you need to see further evidence, and I'll dig it up. Also, sorry again about the ensuing QG misunderstanding; wikistress levels seem to run chronically high around CAM topics. best regards, Jim Butler (t) 00:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Is Jim Butler really sorry when he makes such comments like this? Hmm. QuackGuru 05:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I apologized for this off-topic comment [22], not the on-topic comment that you linked to above [23]. If others feel similarly (and again, I was commenting on several months ago), maybe you should take it as constructive criticism. --Jim Butler (t) 20:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


I think the state that thread had gotten to is indicative of how out of hand things can still get on I-P articles. Closing it with that general warning/reminder, rather than taking specific action against individual editors, was probably the best thing to do - even if my personal view is that there are underlying problems which do need more targeted action, and even if it also caught up a couple editors who really are pretty blameless but simply happen to have posted on the thread. There's no harm in reminding people of what the rules are, even if they haven't actually gone against them.

All I would say though is that a) other editors posted there who you don't seem to have notified of the closure and your comments (including one admin who is heavily involved in contentious editing on I-P articles); & b) a more general notification/reminder of the ArbCom ruling (and standing rules as well) to others who didn't post on that AE thread, but are involved in I-P editing, might also be in order. Especially in the light of the CAMERA fiasco. --Nickhh (talk) 07:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for stepping up and putting an end to the seemingly neverending drama that was unfolding on that page. What a mess! We must all seem like a bunch of whining schoolchildren to the outside observer, with the exception being User:Nishidani, whose wisdom, loquaciousness, and use of multiple ancient and modern languages in poetic forms, puts him in another category altogether. (I do so enjoy reading his entries, whatever the subject, and even when off-topic.) Anyway, User:Jaakobou managed to get himself a week block today for edit-warring at Saeb Erekat, along with User:PalestineRemembered, whom he complained against on WP:ANI. And so the circus show continues ... :) Happy editing. Tiamuttalk 13:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


Hoping you have recieved my emails. SmithBlue (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yessir. I am attempting to address the issue discreetly. Vassyana (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanks![edit]

Thank you for the note. Similarly, I appreciate your efforts to come up with the proposals on the matter - although I don't fully agree on certain bits (obviously), they are a starting spot that is well-suited (and practical) for the now, and I couldn't have gone much further without it. I'm very glad you were bold in expressing your views, and proposals on the matter. :) Likewise, cheers! Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

On this post [24][edit]


Your closing comment seems to be a threat against me as well. But I don't know how I could have responded less aggressively. And my only "feigned naivete" was that with ScienceApologist I know he understands civility just fine, and I pretended that he meant what he said. So, tell me what is wrong with my actions. Am I just supposed to ignore the continual incivility and trolling and insults and disruptiveness forever? It means I can't edit Wikipedia except for talk pages. Tell me if this should have been reverted: [25]

Oh, and please don't tell me to "disengage," because SA edits all the pages I'm interested in..... right after I edit them to revert me. To disengage means I ban myself from Wikipedia. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 22:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

To be fully honest, yes, you are one of the targets of my closing comments. This nonsense has gone on for far too long. You are not the only one to blame, on "your side" or the "other side", by any means. You've been involved in this dispute for quite long enough to know what will raise people's hackles. Don't do those things. It's not very complicated. On disengaging, if you try to disengage and the other editor won't disengage, report that. That would not be a frivolous report, but you would need to show an honest effort to disengage. Also, let me say, earnestly without intending any insult, that playing the innocent party just is not going to wash. That is not to say that you have no been subject to trolling, baiting, insults or other improprieties. However, you are neither completely spotless and need to take accountability for your own actions, regardless of how others are behaving. Finally, you imply that my closing note and intent is one-sided (perhaps unintentionally so), but I assure you, I will be even-handed (to everyone's chagrin) if this insanity continues (see the topic bans of both DanaUllman and Mccready to get an idea of how serious I am about even-handedness). Vassyana (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, there was just a report on what SA did, and nothing happened. He was obviously uncivil under his ArbCom sanction. It was said to be frivilous. So tell me how to "disengage." Stop editing all the article I'm interested in? Tell me how I've done anything wrong, and I'll take responsibility. But I don't know. Yeah, I played innocent on SA's talk page, but that was AGF. If SA is POV pushing on an article, and I report it to AN/I, nothing but nothing would be done except that I'd get a block because so many love him. In other words, I don't want to be like SA here, but what you say is a bit vague. What have I done wrong since the ArbCom which I haven't already acknowledged? What did I do wrong today? What could I have done to stop his incivility and trolliing? ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 22:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there is a tradition on WP, where one experienced editor or sysop takes on a problem user and helps them to know how to improve. If you feel like you don't have a negative biased reaction against the paranormal in general, that means you'd be ideal to take me on. I'll ask you what I should do before doing it, and you'll tell me. I frankly don't think you know what I deal with. Unless you are biased against the paranormal (as opposed to neutral or non-emotionally skeptical), you'll quickly learn if you follow me around a bit. Else, I will learn how not to be a problem editor. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 23:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're actually serious, I'll check your contribs occasionally and prod you if something is pushing the line or a problem, with a polite explanation and open to questions. If I can help you out in such a way, I'd be glad to do so. Just to be clear though, I do believe what I said in my closing note regarding people knowing better, so be mindful that I do approach this aspect of the dispute with a skeptical mind (no pun intended).
If the long-running conflict has made it confusing, filter out what involved parties have told you in opposition or support, and think to what less-involved individuals have said; it's more than likely that they have identified issues that are problematic from a more "objective" viewpoint. In the absence of clear guidance in that fashion, err on the side of caution in relation to the principles of Wikipedia.
One way or another, all of this drama and disruption surrounding a few topic areas needs to stop. I would be very happy if otherwise productive editors found a way, outside of being subjected to a topic ban (whether imposed on themselves, by a sysop, or by the community), to avoid the drama and disruption. I'm sure you agree that some areas are just beyond the "Stop it already!" point. If you have ideas, except mentorship/guidance and/or sanctions, I would be interested in earnest. Vassyana (talk) 00:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I am serious. As I said in my interview (pre-editing-by-Zvika version), the thing these subjects need most is external involvement, that is, light. They are subject to varying proportions of POV pushers on both sides of the debate. I find myself in the middle most of the time when there are others on my purported "side," as on wtbdwk?. For example on that page others on my "side" were opposed to using the word "pseudoscience," and I was not.
I find most of the time that I have good sources, and those who oppose me have bad ones, or else are trying to subvert basic policy. For example, they might try to use the Skeptic's Dictionary as a source for bald statements of fact, rather than attributed statements. Even though the author specifically states he is biased. Thus, a truly NPOV committee which ruled on which sources are best might be a very good thing. For another example, see here [26]. However, the neutrality of the people on the committee would be crucial. You couldn't have, say, Arritt or JzG or Raul there.
DGG has given me some feedback. He's one of the very few outsiders who pay any real attention. And he's confirmed my view of things in general. I don't get much outside feedback, though Zvika (who did my interview) did give me a bit, again positive. The rest of my feedback is from the "sides." I also got feedback on my basic understanding of NPOV and other rules, and my behavior, through two ArbComs. In the first, my understanding was vindicated beyond what I could ever have hoped, but they also said I edit warred and so I became much more circumspect on that. In the second, every bit of mud available was thrown, and a tiny bit of it stuck, and I got an ArbCom sanction which says I can be topic banned if I'm disruptive. That's the extent of feedback, at least that I can make heads or tails of.
I'm confused about your last sentence. Are you saying you don't want to mentor me? Well, it would be nice. If you wish to do something along these lines, see how I've handled myself on Remote viewing. I'm rather proud of that, because it involved some really heavy nastiness, and I feel I dealt with it well without giving up, and that the article improved at least somewhat.
Also, you could expand on what you said above about my not having to take insults and trolling. As far as I know now, I do have to take them, and I also can't report SA, because when I do there are admins who want to block me. I've been taking it for months -years- from many editors, not just SA, like the ones who posted on Arb Enforcement. Others have taken much worse -see wtbdwk? talk page and Transcendental Meditation talk page. Mccready hardly registered. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 01:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The recent editing of Reiki shows what can happen when a good skeptical editor comes along. Slightly disrupted toward the end by Quackguru et al, but what you see there is that I work well with skepticism, just not bad sourcing and POV language. See these as well: [27][28][29][30] ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 18:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

And re Rlevse's post below: tell me how to have a happy ending, and I'll do it. A happy ending means I get to continue to edit my articles of interest, no one is mean to me, and the disruptive editing practices stop. BTW, given the number of people out to get me, I rather think if I were disruptive, I'd have been at least banned from a page, as I'm under ArbCom sanction. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 22:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

AE thread[edit]

Well said. I think pretty much everyone is sick of the SA/MP Science/Psuedoscience mess. The problem is how to put an end to it as neither side seems willing to work towards a happy ending. RlevseTalk 22:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

We, as in both the community and sysops, need to put our foot down and "ENOUGH ALREADY!" ... and follow through on it. Those left when the dust clears will be the remaining users who are not disruptive or mended their disruptive ways, in theory. Vassyana (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Totally agree. One of the problems is that I think the community/admins have seen so much of this SA/MP stuff they're desensitized to it. Another problem is that SA has plenty of pro-science admins who are willing to unblock him for various reasons ("It wasn't that bad", "He didn't mean it", etc--it's ridiculous), so many other admins have gotten a "why bother" attitude. One thing needed is a firm admin that can be neutral. Maybe you're that admin. You may want to check both SA's and MP's block logs if you haven't already. RlevseTalk 01:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I am one of those that feel "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH", and at this stage you will be hard-pressed to find a "non-involved admin" as we have all got involved at one point or another. I am not sure Vassyana has the admin bit, I remember he relinquishing it last year. What we need is some sort of coalition of editors that can put their sig below a "I HAD ENOUGH" proposal. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I have the sysop bit. Vassyana (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Unlike SA, who has gotten hundreds of very specific warnings of one sort or another, many of them from his friends such as Raymond Arritt and many others, no one neutral (no one besides the clique of admins who support SA) has told me what I'm supposed to have done wrong, nor what I'm doing wrong these days. I responded to attacks as best I could, after enduring them for months since the last ArbCom which should have ended them. I posted the request for refactoring on SA's talk page at Rlevse's suggestion, then responded well, I thought, considering what I got in return was a bunch of hoops I was supposed to jump through to get him to take back the obvious incivility which he's under ArbCom sanction not to have done in the first place. The attack by his friends relative to my using the pre-formatted list of diffs was a bunch of hooey. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 03:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: Rlevse, I don't see a whole lot of "pro-science" admins unblocking ScienceApologist. In 2008, I see Thatcher and GRBerry shortening his blocks at various points, and unblocks from Raul654, Coren, and Jehochman. I'm not sure which admins are officially "pro-science", but presumably Raul654 is the only one who might qualify. That said, I would agree that the current state of affairs is highly unsatisfactory all around. MastCell Talk 06:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
And extremely discorded and time consuming, when its at AE/ANI/FT/etc. every week. It becomes tiring to hear the same rhetoric, that those who oppose the "pro-science" camp are "anti-science" and need to be "banned," or that they are "mentally challenged" -- and that every action that seems to be taken is only used as further dispute and is eventually reversed or severely degraded. seicer | talk | contribs 13:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
There are also claims against "anti-homeopathy" editors, so it's not just one of the sides doing that --Enric Naval (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
You're right. There are claims on both sides, and both sides are right that there is POV pushing. Both sides are right that there is disruption from the other side. Seicer probably said it that way because there are a much greater number of anit- editors, so their claims are louder. Also, the anti- crowd don't get called names much. When a good editor like yourself -Remote viewing or Eldereft comes along, we can get some things done (see Reiki). The problem is disruption and lack of any compromise from some editors on both sides. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 20:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I always try to remain NPOV, but it's soooo difficult. I'm happy that you consider that I am a good editor :)
I don't know about paranormal, but, on homeopathy, I can assure you that "anti-" editors get called an impressive amount of things (this is an extreme example, btw, probably caused by extreme frustration by the actual extreme situation) (I'm almost sure that those claims include myself, since I have been claiming for a topic ban of Dana) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. He shouldn't have said that. And he's seen as an editor whom those he's talking about can work with, in addition to being a world expert on the subject. It's an extreme situation, and there are really bad things done on both sides. One of the complaints, though, by the, ah, "reality-based editors" as they call themselves, is that the true believers are too civil to get sanctioned much of the time. So overall they can't be too bad on the civility front (: ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 04:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Hehe, the problem is them being civil in order to avoid sanctions. We are not claiming to topic ban people for excessive civility....yet Mwahahahaha! *goes back to his evil anti-homeopath den* --Enric Naval (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think some of the "Enough is enough" comments here are directed to the wrong point. Of course, we are all sick of the conflict. That is why the term, "Poisoned atmosphere," is more frequently seen these days, along with "Why are we driving away editors?" It is only SA and MartinPhi because Martin is amongst the last open-minded editors who have the courage to stick to the task of editing. As I understand his motive, it is because he believe in Wikipedia a lot more than those who exit. I would be more in that list of bad players if I had more time and if I did not think Wikipedia is fast becoming a failed experiment.

You do not really want Martin to stop editing, because doing so would assure that the paranormal article, and those about theories in science that some editors do not agree with, will become a platform for social engineering. The editor conflicts are all about content, and if you can't find a better way of managing content disputes, then getting rid of the editors will only create a vacuum to be filled by similar editors. Consider it as an ecological niche. Fix the niche not the editor. Tom Butler (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


Amen. MastCell Talk 23:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


I am not part of the mediaiton, I am just watching it to learn the process. I think the conditions you set forth for during the mediaiton, is what people have been trying to get done for a long time in regards to the articles in quesiton, and others related. Basically working with concensus, within the respective WikiProject an article may be in to uphold to it's and Wikipedia standards. Question: Does this apply to all editors or just those involved with the mediation? Are those so involved required to get only concensus form those involved in the mediation in order to effect changes mentioned in the concensus? Example: Can BOZ continue his work on redirecting those monster articles into the list the WikiProject D&D accepted, or will it require him to wait for the parites involved in the mediaiton to agree upon his continued work on those redirects of D&D monsters? Thanks for your assistance in clearing any of this up. shadzar-talk 22:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Shadzar, I'm willing to wait on the redirecting, if it helps the mediation process - it's a big job and I'm in no hurry.  :) BOZ (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
It's voluntary to those who have agreed to it. It's simply a tool to help shelve some disagreements until we can work them out in mediation. The consensus mentioned should be thought of in the normal sense. If a community discussion or local conversation comes to a particular consensus, that should suffice. Vassyana (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


Roger. I'll postpone your lecture 'till next week Sunday --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Where does one sign up to listen in to these lectures? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Open admission. See WP:Lectures. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Vassyana/Problem solving[edit]

I don't want to sound hyper-critical, but I don't really see how this page is all that useful. It doesn't define or characterize the problem or describe any solution different than our usual ways of dealing with controversial articles. Raul654 (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and be critical! I may not agree, but feedback from intelligent users is always welcome. The problem is quite simply that we haven't been addressing the problem. I don't pretend that the solutions I present are anything particularly novel or groundbreaking. However, they are most certainly not the "usual ways" things have been handled, or else there would be a whole lot more individual sanctions (particularly topic bans and blocks) in most heated areas of the wiki. Vassyana (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Kudos and update re Mccready[edit]

With regard to Mccready, I'm really glad that you have managed to come in as a previously-uninvolved admin and grok the dynamic so well. Sincere thanks for taking the time to do so and to make the right calls. You got the balance exactly right: you didn't charge in wielding a banstick, but you didn't shy away from proposing firm sanctions once it was clear there was a real problem.

Now I suppose he'll claim to be ignorant of WP policies on sockpuppeting as well... sigh... but at least he's making things simple, in some sense, by doing everything exactly the wrong way. It looks like we may have to watch a range of IP addresses for awhile, or semi-protect articles, if he keeps at it. regards, Jim Butler (t) 17:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence[edit]

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For dealing with McReady with good judgement, without losing your nerve at any time, and without letting yourself get dragged on any endless and fruitless conversation on his talk page. Good work. Enric Naval (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd read WP:SOUP and think about it. I'm sure he's just happy to keep things going as long as he can. Good work either way. You have much more patience than I have with characters like that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization, Church, and MOS[edit]

Vassyana, do you recall which article we discussed what should be capitalized and what should not be? There is a current conversation on the Roman Catholic Church article and I am trying to remember which article. It seems like I had copied the response from the Chicago Manual of Style's response to my question. If you can remember, I would appreciate it. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, yes I do. :-P MoS conversation here. Note left on my talk page here. My change to the RCC article: [31]. Here was my accompanying talk page comment: [32]. Here is a section link for the general discussion on the RCC talk page at the time: [33]. There was also discussion at a WikiProject about it here. I also solicited the discussion at WikiProject Christianity but did not receive a response here. I hope that's enough for you. *chuckle* Good to see you still around!! Vassyana (talk) 00:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I will post some of this there for their review. It appears that using "the Church" is finding significantly greater support now. Interesting. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


You do realise that it's Davkal using the IPs and creating the situation to then report SA? Shot info (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The two non-proxy IPs are almost certainly ScienceApologist. I blocked the Dakval sock. I cannot unblock ScienceApologist based on the accusation it was another sockpuppeting editor, especially in the absence of any evidence indicating that is the case. That just opens the door to all kinds of abuse, with disruptive editors using open proxies and accusing their opponents of a set up. Sorry. Vassyana (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Heh, so a banned user complete with his enablers "win". O well, by rewarding this, you really have opened up a can of worms. Shot info (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Hmmm. I found the April 13th reply-and-revert cause for concern. However, I went over the last 20 or so user talk page contributions by SA (including at least one at OM's talk page), and he never ever uses a farewell phrase as in that edit. So it looks a bit fishy. Also, your (Vassyana's) logic is somewhat weak - that argument works both ways, of course. You assume guilt and refuse to unblock based on ambiguous evidence. But the evidence for sock-puppetry is just as ambiguous. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
You didn't look very hard at his contributions.[34] Vassyana (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I looked manually. Good idea and point taken. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I often abuse Google to search for things. It can be much more efficient than manually combing through contributions and diffs, and is much better than the native search. Vassyana (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I told you so. You said it wasn't true that everyone has to take whatever SA dishes out, and that the process of WP works. I told you that he can't be blocked, and that he thumbs his nose at all attempts to change his behavior. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 17:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Martin, this block was discussed at length on WP:AN/I and ultimately there was consensus to undo it. That is the process working, though it's not the outcome you might have hoped for. MastCell Talk 21:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to say, and I was the blocking admin, that MastCell is quite right. Martin, I would assume that you would be given the same benefit of the doubt if a skeptical editors was harassing you from open proxies and had a sockpuppet raise the complaint. Vassyana (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I misunderstood. How could Davkal have edited from the astr@columbia thing, which is surely SA? Why would Davkal have waited about a month to do anything about it? How could Davkal have been so dumb about it, given how smart he is. I could have set up SA better. However, if there is genuine doubt here, then of course, we should extend it to SA.
Whatever the evidence, what I said stands in general: first, I would not have been given the same benefit of the doubt. Second, you both know full well that SA is a disruptive editor, routinely violates his ArbCom sanctions, and was -beyond any reasonable doubt- sock puppeting. I do not base what I say on what is politically feasible all the time. Sometimes I operate from a basis of common sense.
Nor do I accept that because people perceive me as having a vendetta against SA that I should keep completely quiet about him. That's like saying that someone who has been abused cannot give evidence in court. I'm the world expert in SA's abuse, because I've been one of the people most on the receiving end. I've seen his incivility, edit warring, bad sourcing, and lack of attribution. I've been the butt of his insults and disdain. I've had his friends abuse me. I've seen SA and friends thumb their noses at the Arbitration Committee. I've been accused of violation of WP standards by those who are obviously in the wrong, and who have been told so by many NPOV editors from outside the debate.
In short, the system has failed. Not just now, but for many months if not years. I was told by Vassyana that I and many others need not take the abuse, disdain, insults, bad sourcing and lack of attribution that SA and his friends dish out. I'm waiting to see that this is so. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 22:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not clear on what abuse you've been subjected to in this instance. As best I can tell, this IP reverted one of your edits a month ago, which is a level of abuse many of us deal with on a daily basis. The mere fact that ScienceApologist is permitted to continue editing is not abuse personally directed at you. I think the fact that Vassyana considered an indefinite block here is evidence that he's willing to take further indications of abuse by ScienceApologist very seriously indeed. I'm sorry you feel you wouldn't receive the same benefit of the doubt; my gut feeling is that you would, but maybe I'm overly naive. MastCell Talk 23:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I doubt very much that I would. I don't have friends like Raul, Arritt, JzG, etc. I have been tarred with the same brush as the worst of the paranormal POV pushers, though my sourcing and editing is unlike theirs. I recall how Thatcher wanted to give me a 30 day block because he blamed me for SA's actions.
Anyway, I wasn't talking mainly about the sock puppetry. I was talking about abuse directed at me and many others. That is the system not working, and it's not an isolated incident either. I mean, there are a lot of trolls who support SA, and they are not dealt with either. In SA's case, not even the ArbCom can do anything about him, because of the other admins who support him. In the other cases, often the line is "well they were trolls, yeah, but they were pushing [what the admin happens to think was] NPOV, so do nothing."
So SA was unblocked by consensus this time. He was unblocked despite consensus before.
But let's not act as if this is just about SA. It's about a lot of folks who are abusing WP, and the processes have not dealt with them. SA is only the easiest case in point. If he were blocked, there would be a lot of others, and you'd suddenly seen them like you see the stars at night, burning dark. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 00:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Civility concerns[edit]

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)


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. ——Martinphi 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. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 18:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your input requested regarding reliable sources[edit]

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[edit]

Hi Vassyana, I find your statement [35] 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)


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

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

Topic ban[edit]

Vassyana, I respect you and your history of participation on wikipedia. However, I am totally confused about your accusation of meatpuppetry.[36] 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.[37] 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. DanaUllmanTalk 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). DanaUllmanTalk 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. DanaUllmanTalk 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) DanaUllmanTalk 13:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Posted on Seicer[edit]

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)


Thank you very much for doing a wikipedia lecture!

Help Regarding WP:CON, WP:RSN[edit]

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: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42] 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 [43]. 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.[44][45] If you have further questions, please ask. Vassyana (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Did you read the talk page.[46] We already have third-party input from an external observer.[47] 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.[48] Thanks for your understanding. QuackGuru 07:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
The third-party opinion said it meets WP:SPS.[49] 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.[50][51][52][53] 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[edit]

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.[54][55] 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.[56] It spurred a fair amount of discussion before the bold redirect.[57] Boldly redirected by the other editor May 9.[58] Merge tagged May 12.[59] Discussion started at the list article on May 12.[60] 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[edit]

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.[61][62] 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.[63] Vassyana (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

New boy stirring things[edit]

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)


It looks like TTN met your conditions. You should probably unblock him now. RlevseTalk 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:[edit]

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. 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)


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 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[edit]

I think you should look at these.




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. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 21:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops, and this [66] ——Martinphi 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, [67] relating to the new section [68] SA has edit warred into FRINGE without consensus. If you're really going to investigate contact Seicer and Nealparr. ——Martinphi 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 [69]. 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 [70]. 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. ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 05:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

see? ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 19:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You didn't log your last block [71] ——Martinphi Ψ Φ—— 22:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sun Tzu[edit]

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"[edit]

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.[72] 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[73], 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)

DanaUllman again[edit]

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[74][75]. Brunton (talk) 09:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Vassyana (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Dana is blocked.[76] I posted a note on the proposed decision talk page.[77] 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.[78] 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)
Dana has asked for a clarification [79] --Enric Naval (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Already replied, though it was probably not the response he was looking for.[80] Vassyana (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Yup, I'm totally sure that it wasn't :D --Enric Naval (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation of WP:FRINGE[edit]

Hi Vassyana. Thanks for stopping by at Chiropractic. There is a matter which I'd like to draw your attention to here. I'm a bit confused as to the interpretation of WP:FRINGE by the skeptics. Also, I would please ask that you tell SA to please stop harassing and spamming my Talk page. Looking at his contribs, he did it yesterday, I asked him to stop and he is continuing today with threats and templates which not in good taste (per WP:DTTR. Given his refusal to 'get the picture' and a continual string probation violations (which does not seem to be working) perhaps it would be worth investigating other measures to curb such conduct. CorticoSpinal (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Before anything else, I should note that the warning about this edit is spot on. All of you need to stop flinging stone at each other. On the fringe issue, I must admit I'm a bit confused. To my knowledge, policy does not define fringe as !mainstream, but rather the views of an extreme minority (in the balance of reliable sources). However, on the same token, I do not think the practice is nearly as predominant and/or well-accepted as some editors would imply or claim. Overall, this is a situation where everyone is starting to get way out of bounds. Vassyana (talk) 23:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
My interpretation of WP:FRINGE its moreso about extremist ideologies than minority numbers. So far, strong evidence from non-disputed mainstream peer-reviewed journals and reputable lay-sources (New York Times) which states chiropractic is mainstream. Skeptics have 0 evidence that Chiropractic is currently fringe like they claim. Bob Dylan said it best "Times are a changin'". (PS: I realize that there's shades of grey; namely it not either mainstream or fringe. The argument being made is that its much moreso mainstream than fringe rather than vice-versa (as suggested by the skeptics). I think the proponents of chiropractic care have presented enough evidence (so far) that supports that claim. The sources are not in dispute. The onus now goes the other direction that refutes the reliable evidence presented in favour of mainstream. Thoughts? CorticoSpinal (talk) 07:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Just a quick random btw, I noticed this while I was looking into a WQA on CorticoSpinal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


User:Snowies Comployeah (talk) 00:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly not Comployeah's primary account. User:Snowies has a total of 5 edits, and none with the level of knowledge shown by Comployeah. Euryalus (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk page[edit]

Although ScienceApologist often seems to be a loose cannon, I don't understand the purpose of this warning, as ScienceApologist probably knows the opposite is true according to Wikipedia:Talk#Others' comments: "On your own user talk page, you may remove others' comments, although archiving is generally preferred." Art LaPella (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please note the diff provided with the warning. He was removing comments from another's talk page. Vassyana (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. Art LaPella (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
No worries! I can understand the misunderstanding. :) Vassyana (talk) 03:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)