User talk:Vassyana/Archive013

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


feedback requested at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Committees[edit]

Hi, if you have time, I'd appreciate any feedback on a slightly crazy idea I had at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Committees. It's related to the Arbitration Committee. Thanks! rootology (C)(T) 18:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Might you give some direction?[edit]

You recently suggested that the editors over at the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution seek dispute resolution, but I'm not sure which avenue is appropriate. It seems we have both perpetual content disputes and possible problems with a disruptive and hostile editor. Should we seek mediation, request comments, or something else? Any direction you might give would be greatly appreciated. The current "situation" can be found here. Thank you. --tc2011 (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

For the content side of things, informal or formal mediation may be able to help resolve some of the broder content issues. Requests for comment can be used to draw some outside voices for specific issues. It may also be helpful to leave a message at a couple of WikiProjects neutrally and civilly asking for a few outside voices. For the behavioral side of things, if someone is engaging in personal attacks or otherwise acting in a rude fashion, WP:WQA may be of some help. If someone is engaging in edit-warring and reverting, 3RR enforcement and page protection may help. If there's a broader pattern of misbehavior, talk page disruption, etc a user conduct RfC and the incidents noticeboard would be appropriate venues to draw broader comment and action from the community. In general, you should try to keep content and behavioral issues distinct. When dealing with content, focus on the content and avoid commenting about the contributors. When dealing with behavioral issues, focus on the behavior and avoid commenting about content. Obviously, there is some overlap. For example, someone misusing sources would make it all but impossible to discuss content without conduct coming up and vice versa. Regardless, you should try your best to leave them apart. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to let me know. Be well!! Vassyana (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

RfArb clarification WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE[edit]

Hi Vassyana -- at this request, I noticed your suggestion to try WP:DR. Here's the thing: we have, big-time. Four RfC's just this year, plus all kinds of noticeboard requests, etc. etc.: these are always a split decisions, and the only way change happens is when one group of editors is strong willed-enough to prevail at low-level edit-warring. That's a nadir I'd hoped ArbCom could change. We really are at the end of WP:DR, not the beginning.

Basically, we've got one group of editors WP:IAR-ing the relevant part of NPOV, WP:PSCI, and just wanting to characterize as pseudoscience pretty much anything that a source has criticized. And we have another group saying that we should stick to WP:PSCI and not through the pseudo label around too casually. All you guys need to do here is either say, yes, WP:PSCI applies to that list too; or, no, it doesn't. Either way, please do something. It's precisely because I have read WP:DR that I took this to Arb as a last resort. I won't be offended if you still decline (just as I trust this note won't offend you), but I just wanted to make the best case I could for you guys to look at it. all best, Backin72 (n.b.) 06:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll put a brief additional comment at the request to clarify these points. No offense taken at all. My talk page is always open to feedback, concerns, questions, or so forth. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Noah's Ark[edit]

Vassyanna, have you given up in trying to mediate on the Noah's Ark article or do you intend to return? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I requested that another volunteer pick up my cases, as settling into ArbCom has required more of my time, energy and attention than I had fully expected. I've modified the MedCab request page to indicate the need for another volunteer. Once I am a bit more settled in, I'll stop by to see how things are going. Still, over the long-term if you need a bit of informal mediation assistance in the broader topic area, please feel free to leave a message for me. I intend to continue working on Wikipedia in that fashion, but time/energy contraints prevent me from doing so at the current time. Apologies for any confusion and delay. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your comment at RFAR[edit]

This is how it goes with arbitration (as a non-arb who's been around for a lot of cases). Try to get settled and make proactive steps to improve how arbitration works, and then a high drama case appears out of nowhere. My candid evaluation here was that this would wind up at the Committee's door soon enough, and by bringing it there swiftly a minimum of side issues intervened. Those tend to multiply if such things draw out. So, sadly, here's the New Year's baby. I admire all the incoming arbitrators for taking on the role and wonder why you wanted it. As Raul654 once wrote, it's the most thankless job at Wikipedia. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 23:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The comment was spurred in large part because there's been quite a few comments (in multiple venues) about how ArbCom needs to resolves some issues yesterday, including in relation to the current request. I do understand that people aren't psychic and can't know what we're discussing privately or looking to work on. One of the changes we're working on include sharing our agenda list (minus private/confidential information), so that people may be aware that some issues are being examined. Regardless, I understand what you're saying. As for why we'd want to do it, you can just assume insanity. :) Vassyana (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

request for suggestions[edit]

here when you have some time (concerns a proposal to Verifiability policy) Thanks,Slrubenstein | Talk 17:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Independent sourcing for Elements of Fiction[edit]

I wonder if you would consider giving a little time to the question of what makes an element of fiction (e.g. a ficitonal character or television episode) notable? You may recall our disucussion regarding the Notability RfC back in September 2008, at which time you put forward the proposal B.6 which proposed that SNG criteria support reasonable presumptions of notability.

Discussions at WT:FICT have become deadlocked over just this issue. The current draft of WP:FICT]] (more or less) suggest that an element of fiction can be presumed to be notable if it is the subject of substantial real-world coverage from reliable sources. Some editors, not unreasonabley, are arguing that the sources in question not only should be reliable, but indepenedent also. Could you have a look at Independent sources and make your views known? --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II[edit]

Hello Vassyana, We are looking for help on the Pope John Paul II article in order to improve it and raise it to ‘Good Article’ and eventually ‘Featured Article’ status. So, I though I would invite you to take a look. Any help would be much appreciated. Kind Regards Marek.69 talk 03:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam[edit]

Admin mop.PNG
Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.

Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board.

Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better.

Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Denbot (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi Vassyana! Are you aware that Arbitor Cool Hand Luke has now completed his independent review of the evidence here. It basically shows that my contributions have been based on proper sourcing and are not even "undue weight", contrary to what has been said. Isn't it then highly unfair to ask for continued restrictions? It would be a shame if the Arbcom followed (and encouraged) the lingering enimities and unwarranted accusations of a few critics, rather than pass a fair judgement about my work. I strongly appeal to your sense of justice in this matter. Best regards PHG (talk) 07:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for the polite message. It is my impression after reviewing all of the evidence that you are certainly improving, have good intentions and produce some great work. I believe the proposed decision notes all of this. Your good work is explicitly recognized and you're encouraged to keep contributing. A focused article ban is set to replace the broader article ban. There is a proposed measure that would allow your mentor to lift the (narrower) topic ban on an article-by-article basis. If anything specific troubles you about the proposed decision, I recommend leaving a message on the proposed decision talk page where all the arbitrators will be sure to see it and have a chance to respond. If you have any further questions or concerns, feel free to leave me a message. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Buddhism and Taoism Face to Face[edit]

Do you have the book? Half of the book is about it. You can read the preface for an overview. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptr123 (talkcontribs) 19:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No content in Category:Non-article Occult pages[edit]

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Non-article Occult pages, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Non-article Occult pages has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Non-article Occult pages, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

On the current Pseudo-science clarification motions[edit]

Also posted to User talk:Newyorkbrad

Elonka expressed concerns about a possible unintended consequence of the first motion. Without noticing that comment by her (until NYBrad's abstention drew my attention to it) I had also made a comment about the first motion. I think that the wording of the first motion if properly interpreted will avoid the potential consequence she highlights. My suggestion as to how to interpret it is already on WP:RFAR, but could do with an Arbitrator making it clear that this is the correct interepretation.

Having recently dug through data on how reports at WP:AE are actually disposed of, warnings and blocks are the two most frequent dispositions, with each being used roughly equally. And the various discretionary sanctions are written so as to require editor specific warnings prior to more serious sanctions. So it just does not make sense for anyone to believe that warnings can be reversed unilaterally but more serious sanctions can't be. Thus I concluded that the clause "that are not specific actions applied to specific editors" limits and restricts all of the items in the list, because to interpret the clarification to say that warnings can be overturned would be ludicrous given the requirement for warnings before anything else is done. GRBerry 03:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe you have the correct interpretation. If people are willing to split hairs or willing to violate normal community norms because they disagree, no amount of clarification from ArbCom is going to help resolve the conflict. As such, I made an purposefully broad comment that still applies to the specific concerns raised.[1] If I can further clarify my own view of the matter or otherwise assist, please do not hesitate to let me know. For that matter, please always feel welcome to raise any concerns or questions you might have about arbitration matters or my actions as an individual. I try to be open and responsive, as much as possible. Vassyana (talk) 06:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I think that covers it, and as the original author you are in the best position to clarify what the meaning was. Thanks. GRBerry 14:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad that my comment was sufficient to clarify the matter. Again, if you ever have any concerns or question, do not hesitate to drop me a line. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Justice please[edit]

Hi Vassyana. Justice please! Cheers PHG (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


I think I am leaving. Cheers PHG (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom Stuff[edit]

Thanks, I'll be posting more diffs as I find time. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hoping you can help[edit]

Could you do me the giant favor of looking here to see whether you'd be able to answer? Thank you, arimareiji (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I provided a response. Let me know if I can help clarify things a bit more. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the help. ^_^ Your clarification was invaluable. arimareiji (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick question on Rand[edit]

interesting to see the process of material being moved from evidence to talk. One question arising. One of the central issues which has been shown on this page is the question of negative evidence. It is manifest here in the debate about is she or is she not a philosopher. Now speaking personal the specific example is not the important thing, but what is interesting is the question of weight. If she is not mentioned somewhere where she should be mentioned is that something that needs to be taken into account, or is one reputable source enough. That aside there are general issues on quality of evidence here, but the "proving a negative" has wider implications than this article.

Is this something that Arbcom will consider, or does its removal to talk indicate that it will not? --Snowded TALK 16:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally, ArbCom does not decide content issues. However, some content issues may be considered in the context of behavior. Good examples would be edit warring, soapboxing, and other disruptive editing. In general, the kind of question you raise is not generally appropriate for ArbCom to consider. This sort of policy consideration is more appropriately raised for discussion at the village pump, no original research talk page, NOR noticeboard, NPOV talk page, and/or NPOV noticeboard. Vassyana (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I understand that content issues are not the agenda - that will have to be sorted out by the editors. However the issue of proving a negative is stalling progress on content and has come up elsewhere (pseudo-science in general, intelligent design etc.) There are no clear guidelines that the moment. I would hope at least some aspect would be considered by Arbcom. Having made that point, I will leave it with you. --Snowded TALK 16:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
The best way to resolve the issue would be at the policy level. Any change or addition of this nature needs to come from the community. Vassyana (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Another question: SteveWolfer seems to be upset that I have a long evidence page when others do not. He has complained about it on the evidence talk page. In fact, although my evidence is longer than other editors, I do include diffs for all the points I make, and his and other editors' evidence is also over the 1000 word limit which he refers to (I've mentioned this in my response on the talk page.) I have moved an entire section to the talk page in response to his complaint, but I am worried that it will be ignored as I think it does demonstrate significant inconsistencies on his and other editors' parts. Should I have left it on the main evidence page or not? I do not want ArbCom to ignore it, and I can't see what else I can move.  DDStretch  (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I posted a note to the evidence talk page. Your contribution will not be ignored. Material posted to the talk pages is still noted and taken into consideration by the arbitrators. If you have any further questions or concerns, please let me know. Vassyana (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I have an extremely poor quality Internet connection at the moment because of bad weather in my area and an untraceable intermittent line fault. However, after many line-drips, I believe I have trimmed by contributions down to 1000 words, though it may be a bit terse at times.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed EL for "Josephus on Jesus"[edit]


I am new to Wikipedia. I am the author of an unpublished manuscript concerning the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. The manuscript has been subjected to elements of academic peer review, and is being 'showcased' online as part of the effort to obtain a publisher.

I have proposed the inclusion of the following article from this website (actually Appendix I from the manuscript) as an EL under the topic "Josephus on Jesus":

The article is well researched and the arguments are both logical and valid. Since the article bears on the authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum, it necessarily takes a position, or POV. Most of the other EL's under this topic also take positions, varying from 'complete forgery' to 'mostly authentic'. Mine is the only argument which questions the criteria upon which the Testimonium has been rejected by many; in other words, it defends the minority position that insufficient cause exists to reject the received text of the Testimonium.

As you can see [2], Carl Bunderson [3] approves the addition. But Doug Weller [4] believes that the article is inappropriate for Wikipedia. I have discussed this matter privately with Doug, and do not think we are likely to agree.

I am very reluctant to add the material without some sort of clear consensus. Frankly the article brings up points and provides contemporaneous sources that are not included under the Wikipedia topic or the EL's, and it promotes nothing except a more complete consideration of the evidence.

Could I impose upon you to look at the article, and if you believe that it adds merit to Wikipedia, to demonstrate the appropriate method to reconcile the current impasse?

Thanking you in advance for your consideration,

Mortalresurrection (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Our guidelines includes a list of links to avoid, which includes blogs not written by recognized authorities. While your link is interesting, it does run afoul of our linking standards. If other external links in the article are below standards, please feel free to remove those links that are below par. Wikipedia is principally focused on providing a recounting of the information contained in reliable sources. Our main policies about this are "verifiability", "no original research" and "neutral point of view". There is also an external links guideline for web site links.)
On another thought, there are Wikimedia Foundation projects that fit in with your outside work. Wikibooks and Wikiversity are sister projects both welcome unpublished original research. I hope you stick around Wikipedia to help us out, but it seems appropriate to mention projects that could benefit from your obvious interest. If I can be of further assistance, or answer any other questions, please always feel free to contact me. Vassyana (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt assistance, and for resolving the 'impasse' (although not as I had hoped!)
I will probably not be the one to delete the other links which fall outside of Wikipedia standards, as I could not defend against allegations of 'conflict of interest'.
Will the status of these written materials change after publication? I certainly desire for these articles to be available to those seeking an understanding.
Best Wishes,
Mortalresurrection (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
A conflict on interest on Wikipedia simply encourages you to act with caution (see WP:COI). If you are acting in accord with consensus, or otherwise acting well within the community norms, you should not have a problem. For example, removing dead links is entirely uncontroversial. On to the tricky part! People will sometimes talk about "pointy" actions (or something similar). They are referring to WP:POINT. Mass removing links are having a link denied could be seen as a POINTed action. However, if you are carefully removing links (dead links, non-expert blog, geocities homepage, etc), any removals will be easy to explain and any concerns about your removals should be negated. Provided you act with some caution, common sense dictates that you shouldn't be stopped from cleaning up an article.
Try to avoid promoting any particular view on Wikipedia. Trying to push any particular side, especially a small minority view, is frowned upon and often treated as a form of disruption.
We do cross-project linking and if directly relevant material were available on another WMF project, some limited linking is likely permissable. However, people will have an eye on such a method to see if the cross-linking is promotional or intended as a means to circumvent Wikipedia's rules.
Regarding the publication, provided it is released by a reputable publisher and represents a a significant minority view, it would be OK to use for a short statement or two in the article, at that point. Also, if you were to become published multiple times and establish yourself as a reputable author, external links to your blog would be more acceptable. If you have any further questions or concerns, always feel welcome to leave me a message. Vassyana (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


Hi, as an Admin you should not need specific approval for AWB, and even so, you could approve yourself. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 23:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Noted. I've added myself to the approved list. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Quick Ayn Rand ArbCom question[edit]

I just made an emergency motion on the Workshop page, as there has been a recent explosion of edit warring on the article. Do I need to do anything else or is this sufficient? Idag (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to support this, we really need some resolution here. Not only edit warring but more insults, the F word and God knows what else. --Snowded (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the Ayn Rand article for one month. If the dispute spills over into other articles, please let me know. Vassyana (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Idag (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


You mentioned a wish to see Elonka's viewpoint on WP:RFAR. Unfortunately she's on a wikibreak at the moment. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Her contribs end 5 days ago with notice of a break of unspecified duration. GRBerry 22:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Noted.[5] Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Rand ArbCom (Idag Edit-warring diffs)[edit]

I just had a quick question about the edit warring policy. Two of the diffs that are in the factfinding proposal of my edit warring are of me reverting what I thought was vandalism.[6][7] My question is, how exactly do I tell when something is vandalism? Idag (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies, as you should not be chided in the least for those edits. You are correct about both of those diffs. Both were proper reversions of "pointed" vandalism. Some of the diffs in the drafting notes must have gotten mixed up and that is entirely my fault. I have corrected the diffs listed in the proposed decision accordingly and will review the proposed decision to ensure there are no other such errors. Good-faith reversion of blatant vandalism should not in any way be included as evidence of edit-warring. Vassyana (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I was somewhat confused by those. =) Idag (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem! Thank you for raising the diffs to my attention, and for handling the manner in such a polite way. Your edits brought the vandalism they were reverting to my attention, but in the process of juggling notes around Idag edits got mixed up with Idag edits. Again, my apologies for the goof. Did you have any additional comments on the proposed decision? If you do, please feel free to post them to the talk page or leave me a message. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem! I can't say that I'm thrilled about the topic ban of myself, but I can certainly understand it. My only additional suggestion is that ArbCom may also want to consider a 1RR restriction on the Ayn Rand and Objectivism group of articles. Looking over some of the background stuff, the previous group of editors to edit those artices also appear to have had an edit-warring problem. There's just something about that subject that draws this type of behavior out, so 1RR may be a good way to nip it in the bud for future conduct. Idag (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
(Please keep in mind that all of my replies are as an individual and I don't speak for anyone else.) I would rather not see a 1RR restriction imposed, as I think it would become essentially a point to wikilawyer over edit warring. The reason I feel this way is due to the large number of editors involved at the article. It is possible to carry out some vicious edit wars under 1RR without more than one or two people, if any at all, clearly violating the 1RR restriction, while several people were involved and equally as culpable. For example: User A makes an edit, User B reverts, User C restores, User D reverts, User A restores (first revert), User E reverts, User F restores, User D reverts. Six editors, not an unlikely number for the article. Seven reverts in a row, which is inarguably a nasty edit war. However, only one editor is liable for a 1RR violation (User D). All six editors were involved in the edit war. Five are culpable for the conflict (excusing User B, who did not repeat the initial reversion and could be said to be following BRD). Because of a numerical bar, only one of the five editors are likely to be sanctioned or blocked. If any of the other five editors are sanctioned, they are likely to wikilawyer that they, individually, did not violate the 1RR restriction. I would rather have an admin come in to lay down an article protection and/or feel free to sanction edit warring parties as necessary, without a numerical bar defense for sanctioned parties to call upon. Vassyana (talk) 19:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense, thanks for the reply. Idag (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem. If I can answer any further questions, or be of assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Please remember to remove articles from 3rd opinion page[edit]

When you offer a 3rd opinion please make sure and remove the article in question from the 3rd opinion page. Wikipediatoperfection Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I always do, but I haven't provided a third opinion in a while. Looking at the 3O history, I see you are likely referring to the Genovese crime family request. The third opinion I provided was for a completely different issue than the recent request and quite some time ago. The recent request is a dispute over whether or not a person is a verifiable leader of the group (see Talk:Genovese_crime_family#Paul_DiMarco and [8]). Vassyana (talk) 04:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
On another 3O note, the dispute listed for zero tolerance is found at Talk:Zero tolerance#Equipped with extremely bad sources, rather than the (non-existant) linked sectin. Hope this helps! Vassyana (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. Sorry to comment without providing context of what article I was talking about. I was indeed thinking of the crime family article. It seems that people have troubles linking the 3O page to the portion of the discussion where they would like a 3O. Thanks for fixing the links at the 3O page. Wikipediatoperfection (talk) 05:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem. If I can be of any further help, let me know. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi, got your message on the disruptive editing board. He's now reported me for 3RR on some sort of technicality. Is he gaming the system? I've self-reverted to be safe but I don't understand how my 4th edit is a revert. The (I think spurious) 3RR report can be found here. Will in China (talk) 05:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank You![edit]

Oh praises be, you actually stopped the edit war! (The one at Thelema, if you do this a lot.) If you ever need help from a very odd person, just ask. Dan (talk) 05:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The Tao of Physics
Bubel Aiken Foundation
Hardcore Zen
Burton Watson
Sex scandal
Clerical script
Herbert Giles
Religious interpretation
Zhang Bao
Kou Qianzhi
Chinese Daoist Association
The Way to Life
Tao Yin
The Globe (tabloid)
Covenant Code
Israel Finkelstein
Mission America (Columbus, Ohio)
Bible prophecy
Book of Ruth
Virtue ethics
Primitive Apostolic Christianity (Sabbatarian)
Add Sources
Moy Lin-shin
Wu wei
Wisdom literature
Black Hebrew Israelites
Boris Vian
Bernard Ingham
Comparing Eastern and Western religious traditions
Christianity Explained

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) 21:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sun Tzu for FAC?[edit]

Hey, I don't know if you remember, but I worked on Sun Tzu way back in May 2008, hoping to bring it to FAC eventually. When that project fell by the wayside, you came along and did a great job to the article, bringing it up to GA standards. I've been thinking of working on the article again and bringing it to FAC soon. Would you like to co-nominate it, or are you too busy? What do you think the article still needs before FAC? Thanks in advance! Gary King (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be honored to co-nominate the article for FAC! I'll post a review or suggestions on the article talk page. It definitely needs a bit of work to come up to FA standards, but it should be a solid foundation to build upon. Vassyana (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative Views[edit]

There is a discussion I'm involved in on the Wikiproject Alternate views talkpage, of which you are a member, that I would like your opinion on. I'm trying to get to the bottom of the goals of the wikiproject, as it has been described in a rather worrying way on the Talk:AIDS denialism page. Please do give your opinion here, there (pref.) or on my talk page. Yours, Verbal chat 22:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was hoping that meco and the AIDS editor weren't speaking for everyone on the project. Verbal chat 22:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem. A project of that scope is bound to draw a few people of that sort of view. They're the reason the "policy still applies, including FRINGE" section of the project page exists. It doesn't stop people from making tl;dr assumptions (just like people assume they're entitled to three reverts, despite the policy being explicit to the contrary). However, like the 3RR section, it's still a useful section to point out when encountering those mistaken editors. Vassyana (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Apostolic Johannite Church delete page[edit]

Dear Vassyana:

Thank you very much for your kind letter. I admit that I was concerned about potential bias because of some of the claims that you made that are not founded in fact, but are commonly circulated among partisans of L'Eglise Gnostique (e.g. L'Eglise Gnostique is the largest gnostic church, the Johannite church was merged with Doinel church, etc.) Your forthrightness absolutely does away with those concerns. I have absolutely no suspicion about your good faith and I hope that you will please accept my apologies if I acted out of ignorance.

I will be blunt, as you have done me the honour of doing the same. I still have concerns that you came into the discussion with your mind made up regarding the notoriety of the AJC. I hope that you will honestly consider the changes that have been made to the page and the sources that have been presented. I submit that the article has merit and deserves a place on wikipedia as an asset for researches and the inquisitive, and I hope that you will come to see that as well.

In further bluntness, I think that I allowed myself to get a little too personally invested here, which is my mistake. At the end of the day, we're talking about a wiki article, not the end of the world.  :)

I thank you again for your letter, and remain

sincerely yours

William Behun--Wbehun (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Vassayana:

If nothing else has come of this discussion, I've come to have a greater respect for you and your position. I call that a win in any book.

Thank you

William Behun --Wbehun (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of AJC site[edit]

Hi Vassyana,

I'm wondering how pages come up for review like this? The page for the AJC was rather sparsely supported, yet so is the one for the Ecclesia Gnostica. The Ecclesia Gnostica is mostly self-referential, as well.

I'm curious why ours was recommended and theirs wasn't. I'm new to wiki-procedure, and so wanted to know.


Father.rassbach (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The process that was used is call "articles for deletion", and commonly called "AfD" (see: WP:AFD). What lead me to the AJC article was an article (now deleted) called "Johannite", which was a mish-mash of topics and Templar fringe theories. Some of the claims in the AJC article set off alarm bells for me. I did a bit of research, looking for information about the church, originally with the hope of expanding and improving the article. However, I was unable to find substantive independent coverage of the Apostolic Johannite Church in reliable sources. The resources I have access to are reasonably comprehensive. I additionally had one of my friends check a couple more periodicals and journal databases for me. Without substantive sources, we cannot meet our basic content policies. (This basic idea is called "notability", in the sense that reputable independent sources have treated the topic as noteworthy.) Thus, I nominated the article for deletion to invite the community to review the article. Other deletion processes are "speedy deletion" and "proposed deletion". If I can help clarify anything further, please do not hesitate to let me know. --Vassyana (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. The AJC is young church, so there is a derth of third party articles and books at this time. Once more appear, I'm sure the article will be resubmitted. As it is, I think it's inclusion on the "Gnosticism for Modern Times" page is sufficient.Father.rassbach (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know. (Also, when enough coverage becomes available, I'd be glad to help out in building that article.) Be well! --Vassyana (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Tao Yin
Christianity Explained
Clerical script
Burton Watson
List of Muslim Christianity scholars
Jane English
Jordan Declaration
International Churches of Christ
Victor H. Mair
The Tao of Physics
Bubel Aiken Foundation
Guoyu (book)
Israel Finkelstein
Sex scandal
Patriarchs (Bible)
Herbert Giles
Folk Christianity
Classic of Music
Virtue ethics
Prayer Mountain
Great Hanshin earthquake
Is-ought problem
Primitive Apostolic Christianity (Sabbatarian)
Add Sources
The Globe (tabloid)
Gia-Fu Feng
Participant observation
Plymouth Brethren
Spiritual gift
Five Classics
Bernard Ingham
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) 21:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thelema mediation[edit]

We need your input. Where are you? Dan is getting impatient and making editprotected requests pretending a consensus has been achieved. Will in China (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. I have been having a few issues with my internet service. I will touch base over there and see how we can move things forward. Be well! --Vassyana (talk) 03:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Hope your internet situation improves. Mine gets spotty sometimes and it's frustrating when it does. Will in China (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be unable to justify your position[edit]

with respect to MZMcBride's desysopping: "Additionally, the actions taken while under injunction, and the response provided, are the camel's straw for me. --Vassyana (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)". By voting on the very terribly worded remedy from what you intended it on tackling, you are far from impartial to be making a judgement on how it would've been interpreted by someone else. My interpretation significantly differs from yours as indicated here, and I expect any user to provide an adequate justification/response if they feel to the contrary. When you fail to respond to that comment, and practically write a comment that fails to show any consideration of that comment, you are disregarding the community's views on the matter in favour of your own very personal opinion. As such, that is grossly unbecoming of a user in your status and position. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In essence, I feel performing actions that have the same impact and appearance as a restricted behavior falls under a reasonable interpretation of the restriction. Following the exact letter of the rules as opposed to the spirit and using loopholes to escape restrictions while still undertaking the same basic actions are both negative behaviors frowned upon by general community consensus. Otherwise, I think FayssalF clarified the situation sufficiently. If there is a specific point you feel he or I have left unaddressed, please let me know and I will do my best to explain my position and respond to your concerns. --Vassyana (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I think mine was a fairly reasonable interpretation of the restriction. Again, was the restriction an attempt to (a) ban deletions altogether (i.e. the problem is any deletions), (b) ban deletions that are made too quickly (i.e. the problem is too many deletions are made too quickly), or (c) ban deletions that are made through automated tools (i.e. the problem is when deletions are made through automated tools)? Would a reasonable person believe that "refrain from using automated tools (including bots and scripts) to delete pages or nominate them for deletion", in the absence of any other statements from the Committee, would unambiguously be to address a, b or c? Would you like a general poll on this particular point that "broke the camel's back"? Or did I miss some statement that the Committee made prior to moves to make the second injunction into effect? I'm all for spirit of the principle-finding-remedy-etc., but some arbitrators' arguments (including yours) in this case doesn't stick - the facts tell another story. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I can appreciate where you are coming from, but we will probably have to agree to disagree. To me, actions which have the same appearance and impact as, or are practically indistinguishable from, explicitly restricted conduct reasonably falls under such restrictions. I do understand how a reasonable interpetation can be made that it only strictly applied to actions specifically undertaken with (semi-)automated tools regardless of the similar impact and appearance, as that was the sole explicit target. However, I feel that restrictive method of interpretation is misguided at best and crosses over into a land of wikilawyering and system gaming in worse cases. I can accept that he undertook the actions in good faith, and indeed I accept that his actions are generally intended to be for the best of the project. However, good intentions do not preclude inappropriate behavior. Regardless, I have revised the wording of my support in light of your concerns.[9] --Vassyana (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you - your comment at remedy 1 would need a similar adjustment. Although the rationale now seems to be distant from the harshness of the remedy per Nyb, I agree - we're at the point where we'll have to agree to disagree. Notwithstanding, I also appreciate your perspective that it can lead to system gaming in worse cases (and may be considered as a loophole), but to that I'd respond that this is a case-by-case thing, and this is not a matter where the "loophole" was unforeseeable; it could've/can-still (past/present/future) be closed completely. I would submit that your manner of interpretation here is spot on, if the restrictions are being forcefully gamed (like in the harassment case I cited at the Ryulong workshop), but one shoe doesn't fit all types of cases. Anyway, cheers again, Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I've also adjusted the wording for remedy 1 in the same spirit. I am glad we can at least agree to disagree. :) Your point about context and a case-by-case evaluation is noted and I will keep it in mind. Just to note, I found your initial posts to be a pretty harsh in tone. While I did my best to respond cordially and helpfully, that kind of approach will lead most editors to tune out your message, even if you are raising valid concerns. That said, always feel free to leave me a polite message if you have concerns about my actions or statements. At the very least, I will always try to provide my rationale and explain myself as much as possible. I feel that such exchanges are fruitful if there's at least some mutual respect, understanding, and/or a cordial agreement to disagree in the end. Civil disagreement is part of a collaborative environment. Be well! --Vassyana (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad too; I recall relatively pleasant interactions in the Homeopathy case too, where we had another civil disagreement. :) I'll try bear your point in mind, and your response was helpful - it was probably one of the few responses from anyone on ArbCom that has directly addressed something that I've said, whether I've sugar-coated it, or been more on the blunt side, like here. My faith in the Committee as a whole was notably shaken very late last year - and if that wasn't enough, once again after a very recent episode in which I was very much involved. But regardless, I've been plain and honest, even in my feedback - I've tried to make it more timely (and hence valuable so changes can be made right away) so that I'm not seen to be repeatedly giving criticisms after the event(s) when it's too late to do anything. You too! Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of courtesy, I also wish to inform you that I made a comment at ANI that does indirectly comment on the voting on another item by you and 3 others arbitrators, as well as of that below. I trust you won't mind passing the message on accordingly. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. --Vassyana (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome, and thanks again. Seeing I'm here, I'm afraid to note that I've made another criticism directly at the proposed decision talk page for reasons stated there - though this criticism involves about 9 other arbitrators (possibly more for anyone who didn't get their votes down within that time). I've kept your comments in mind and revised the wording 10 times (probably a bit more) before posting, and then a few times after. The strength of criticism and praise on each arbitrator does vary (for reasons once again stated there). Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

NCM - chill out. RlevseTalk 21:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Thelema#Rabelais' Thélème[edit]

I get the feeling we'll need an opinion here. Dan (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I am heading out of the house at the moment. However, I will be back around much later today and will poke my head in then. --Vassyana (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of our "agreement" thus far? Dan (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I don't know if I should say this, but the following has happened since that agreement.

We had a possible violation from me in response to a direct question from you:
plus, of course, this present comment. Tell me what you think about this.

And then we have WiC: (different user) (This after you said again to be bold)

-Dan (talk) 06:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Also and I don't even know what he means there; I know I tried to add Regardie and the subconscious in the appropriate place. Dan (talk) 07:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Also Dan (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Also 01:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


and (for an answer to the charge, see the Sutin quote) Dan (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, technically. (And again, see Sutin's wording.) Dan (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

And more, but I think you can see what happened. If our agreement has no meaning, then tell me right now so I can go discuss some other standards. Dan (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thelema - semi-protect?[edit]

Would it be possible to semi-protect the article while we are making mediated changes? A couple of ip editors have been blundering in and making questionable edits. I think they should be discouraged from doing so and encouraged to create accounts and join the discussion. Will in China (talk) 01:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thelema - please revert and reprotect[edit]

Vassyana, Dan keeps making changes to the article prior to achieving consensus and is edit warring to keep his particular changes in place. Could you please revert back to the last consensus version of the article (this version from before we started discussing the Rabelais section) and protect the article again? It seems we will need to come to mediated agreement on content on the talk page and then have an admin make the changes to the article in order to proceed in any kind of consensual manner. Will in China (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer review of larp article[edit]

Hey there. As you did a previous Good Article review of the live action role-playing game article, I thought you might be interested in feeding back at the peer review I've just listed it for. That article has much improved since your last review and passed a subsequent Good Article review, but I'm fairly sure it needs more work before being ready to be featured and would really appreciate specific suggestions. Cheers, Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thelema - please review proposed addition[edit]

Could you please review this proposal for a change to the article and give your comments? Thanks in advance. Will in China (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Intentional disruption of draft page[edit]

I see no valid reason for reverting a draft page mulitple times while another editor is working on it. Dan intentionally reverted me three times while I was in the process of making multiple edits which he knows is my style, with the intent to use the threat of 3RR to prevent me from presenting my proposed version. We should be taking turns on a draft, not reverting at all. I added something, he changed it, we discussed it, I was trying to make more changes and there was no reason to revert until after I finished and then we discussed. How can we discuss what I propose if I'm prevented from even finishing it! This is been Dan's modus operandi on the actual article prior to protection and mediation as well. Can't someone other than me see this behavior is intentionally disruptive, directed at me, and needs to be addressed? Will in China (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ek, if you don't want your work quite as likely to be edited, then create a copy of it in your user space and work on it there, or, perhaps your own sites would be preferable to you. Do you put the 'in use' bannner at the top of the page? If not, you can't say people are doing anything wrong in (gasp) editing the encyclopedia which everyone (except blocked/banned users :) ) can edit, and which no editor, ideally, WP:OWNs, especially the articles/pages involving article space. Because of the WP:OWN policy, edit summaries like "lay off CHANGING MY TEXT" [10] are not really apposite. If you don't put the 'in use' banner up, people can't read your mind and know you're in the midst of editing and going to add another edit in a second. Presumably even you stop sometimes :) and they might think you've just finished. Sticky Parkin 11:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

moot point now[edit]

Remember that banned user who used sockpuppets to create a false consensus at Talk:Thelema? You may know him as User:Ekajati or Ekky. Well, when WC first came in and restored Ekky's edits in time of yore, he used an anonymizing proxy. (I mentioned this recently when Coldmachine, for this very reason, requested checkuser on him.) Guess who just posted without signing in? Guess who he is? I give you WC confirming he was, the contributions page for said IP address complete with location tools, and then the contributions pages for two Ekky IP addresses:


I've already alerted YellowMonkey. -Dan (talk) 05:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

So, could you do us a favour and block this perennial sockpuppet edit warrior? :) I can prove who Ekajati/Will in China is, I won't so as not to out him, but he has engaged in a lot of WP:COI edit warring, not even just POV. Sticky Parkin 19:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for acting, I know you have other work to do. (I'll think about the article when I've had more sleep.) Dan (talk) 08:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that it took me a bit. I've been a bit busy and distracted. Additionally, he's been editing for a while and I wanted to get a bit of sanity check from a few people I trust before undertaking an indefinite block. --Vassyana (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Toby Keith[edit]

Would you look at the discussion about some contentious material being added to the Toby Keith article? I'm trying to avoid an edit war, but I firmly believe that the material violates wp:blp. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - April 2009[edit]

User talk:Vassyana/Archive013[edit]

I guess that's what you had in mind ;) (not Archive012) -- lucasbfr talk 06:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

  • <facepalm/> I noticed my error after the second "dump". Thanks for fixing it and being kind about it. :) Slashes can be pretty important![11] Thanks again. --Vassyana (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

requesting clarification[edit]

hello - just pointing out this request for clarification. thanks Sssoul (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have responded there. If I can provide any further clarificaiton, or otherwise be of assistance, please do not hestiate to let me know. Be well! --Vassyana (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thanks - and as i've noted there, it's still not clear why i was made the subject of any kind of ArbCom search for "evidence", and i strongly feel that needs to be clarified. Sssoul (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) good morning - again just to let you know i've added something here. i hope i'm being clear enough about what's bothering me about the statement as it's now written: it's not only the "mix & match" nature of the sentence about the reasons the selected names are named; it's also the phrase "no substantial evidence was found" (which implies that evidence was sought, which in turn begs the question why). there's also the fact that i myself have witnessed (and sometimes been the brunt of) distinctly unpleasant behaviour on the part of at least two of the parties you name in that sentence; if you mean that you investigated accusations made against them and found them to be based on insubstantial evidence, that's definitely worth spelling out. thanks Sssoul (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

update: i see that while i was formulating the note above, you were over on the Evidence page solving the problem. thanks - that edit indeed fixes it. Sssoul (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I am glad that I was able to accomodate your concerns. If there's anything else I can do, please always feel free to contact me. Regarding misconduct on the part of certain editors, it's entirely possible that in the process of reviewing thousands of links (literally) that I may have missed something or just didn't come across extant proof of misconduct. If you have evidence regarding any editor not listed and feel that their misconduct warrants examination and mention, please submit evidence showing the pattern of misconduct. I will be glad to review it, and while I cannot speak for other arbitrators, I am fairly assured that the other arbs examining the case in depth would also appreciate the evidence. Take care! --Vassyana (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thanks - i won't be adding any evidence to the page, since it's already overlong, and since Ryan Postlethwaite is in a better position to point out the exciting episodes from the last few days of drafting the RfC. anyway thanks again for your responsiveness. Sssoul (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom date delinking evidence summary[edit]

May I suggest that you might consider adding a link to this useful summary of the alleged edit wars involving Tennis expert? Colonies Chris (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

My evidence section is simply supposed to be a collection of representative examples. I believe that two series of eleven reverts suffices for the purpose. --Vassyana (talk) 05:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Will in China[edit]

I originally suspected sockpuppetry due to the use of open proxies/Tor nodes (found him editing just hours apart from Runtshit, Grawp, Brexx socks), but I took his explanation on his user page at face value. Good job investigating this matter. Best, Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. However, as much as I'd like to say I have uber-sleuthing skills, it really was a case handed to me wrapped in a bow.[12] --Vassyana (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah, okay. You've got an e-mail headed your way. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice work on Sun Tzu![edit]

I love the way the article looks now. Excellent! It's great to see others contribute to China-related articles and bring them up to good or featured status. At the moment, my latest project is all the various articles for the Han Dynasty, which I've brought to Good Status. The main Han Dynasty article is also a featured article candidate at the moment. Perhaps you could have a look and offer some advice? I love getting feedback from experienced editors. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk 20:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate the compliment, quite a bit of work has been done on the article since I last edited it.[13] --Vassyana (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Ah! Nonetheless, good job.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


Vassyana, thank you indeed for your kind get-well message. Now I know what it feels like to be 100 years old. It's hard to get up and down the stairs, but I'm definitely on the mend and nothing broken, at least. Tony (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Date delinking/Evidence[edit]

Hi: I accidently noticed that you have posted evidence against me for "edit warring" in your unsigned entry on the above-mentioned page. I cannot see how my good faith edits (which contain careful edit summaries mentioning the MOS of the time, and also cleared up some unintentional mistakes made by other editors) in these few instances could in any way fall under the heading of "edit warring". I think you are making a very strong accusation here, which is totally uncalled for (and, as a minor detail, you misspelt my user name :-) ). Regards, --HJensen, talk 10:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)]

I have changed the note to call them mainspace reverts. However, I would note that repeated reverts in the absence of a few exceptions (copyright violations, BLP vios, etc) are considered edit-warring. If you have evidence that this was a limited occurance, or information that provides further context, I would be glad to review it and alter my presentation accordingly. --Vassyana (talk) 23:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I really cannot add further to this—proving something one didn't do is quite difficult. Best, --HJensen, talk 23:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
There's no question that you engaged in mainspace reversion in relation to the main focus of case. However, you could explain under what context you engaged in the behavior, in what time period, or so forth. I'm not looking for proof of a negative, but information that would place the evidence in context. Diffs certainly don't say everything. For example, if the reverts were very limited in terms of both the number of articles and time period, it would place the evidence in a very distinct light from reverts that occured across a higher number of articles and/or a longer time period. I hope that helps better clarify my position. If I can answer any questions that help further clarify, I would be glad to help. --Vassyana (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again for your reply. First, I must admit I do not know precisely that is meant by "mainspace reversion". In any case, the only context I can put my edits into, is that they were good-faith edits in accordance with the MOS at the time (that linking of dates were deceprated). I did not know that making such edits, and correcting another editor's intentional reinsertion of links were considered edit warring. In the instances I removed links to dates I therefore thought I was doing the right thing. I was only reverted by User:Tennis expert, who rarely provided any edit summaries as to why he did so. Also he introduced some mistakes into articles that I corrected. I was under the clear impression that he was breaching policies, so I felt that I did the right thing by revreting his linking. (I have later learned here on Wikipedia, that policies can sometimes be ignored whenever some editors find it appropriaate.) As Tennis expert kept reverting (I see that he did over 700 reverts in short time), I gave up after a while (the two months my two handful of edits occured in), as I usually do when I encounter that editor. I also stopped trying to improve the Mats Wilander and Guillermo Vilas articles, which I put some work into at that time. Edit warring? I thought that it took more than a few reverts backed by a guideline. So I am quite surprised if it is, but my recent experiences with how rules and definitions can be bent as desired, leaves me a bit worried. Cheers, --HJensen, talk 16:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oneirocritic literature[edit]

Tsk tsk, how dare you do such a sensible thing? Seriously, thanks, I'll back you on that one. I notice the article's creator has been active today, we shall see what happens. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes this bizarre head tingle overwhelms me and I am compelled to do silly things like that. Maybe I should see a doctor? :) Thank you for your supportive and cheerful note. --Vassyana (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Holy Spirit[edit]

Hi Vassyana. I remove a tag that you added to the article Holy Spirit. That was because the tag was very general, and it was not possible to work out which parts of the article the tags referred to. If you want to re-add them, please explain on the talk page what your specific issues with the article are. Thanks DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I felt the tags were quite obvious, given the state of the article. Reagrdless, I have explained on the talk page. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. --Vassyana (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I/P arbcom and User:Vassyana/consensus[edit]

You make some good observations here, but in the I/P arbcom case, nothing can be found back about it. Can you explain why this important issue is ignored? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It essentially comes down to arbitration being a rather blunt instrument and pragmatism. Arbitration decisions need to weight the choice of issues based on clarity and prominence, or so I see it. In this specific case, there were a variety of fruitless discussions with people talking over each other. There were a large number of people, with many shades of the opposing views. While I am sure the situation seems obvious to some observers and most participants, it did not seem to me that there were clear cases of stonewalling that could be reasonably communicated and shown in an arbitration decision. If you have any other questions, or any concerns, please feel free to leave me a message. Be well! --Vassyana (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
yeah, I got that it is all blunt and pragmatic. In the meanwhile, stonewalling of the type as displayed in this case will poison the editing environment, and result in more I/P ArbCom cases, over and over again. if this case was not clear, it just told many that those ways are allowed and working. Good job! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


not at all sure if I got it or not... so re-send. Blueboar (talk) 03:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Got it. I am about to start a new job, which unfortunately will mean a lot less time to give to Wikipedia. So I will have to decline your offer to act as a moderator for the project. Still, it is nice to know that your efforts are appreciated by other. 12:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


Hi Vassyana, looking at the RFAR about Mattisse, it occurred to me that many such problems, and the culturally engrained adversarial mode of resolving them, could be mitigated if we made a greater effort to moderate or facilitate discussions, at least around key processes such as GA and FAC. I also wondered whether facilitation wasn't generally a better name than "mediation", which immediately conjures up the image of two sides, with a piggy in the middle. Not sure how it would work, but if you think there is merit in discussing something like this, I've started a thread at Village pump (proposals). Best, Jayen466 11:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


Hi Vassyana, thank you for your sensible words here, which encouraged me to take my concern to you. Even though it isn't clear from the final FoF proposal, it appears that the sole quote the proposed WP:BATTLE FoF is based on is this (2.8.2). Several editors have expressed concerns [14][15] that the evidence 1) is by itself too weak to support the FoF (even if read with an assumption of extremely bad faith) and 2) does not support the incriminating "ethnic" part of the FoF at all.

Furthermore, I get the impression that some ArbCom members may have mistakenly assumed that the FoF is based on something totally different in the diff given: my rejection of examples of "X" as proof of the existence of non-X. This is a completely non-controversial thing to do, which nevertheless was painted by Jayjg as "distasteful ethnic discrimination" (because "X" in this case was "Israeli usage of the term Samaria"). This meme, despite having been debunked dozens of times in the talk pages, appears to have taken on a life of its own, and I find it deeply worrying that some of your colleagues may have been under that misconception when they cast their votes. May I ask you to inquire, briefly? MeteorMaker (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - May 2009[edit]

Never say never ;)[edit]

On reflection, I can understand your concern with the rollback principle at the Ryulong PD. However, it also seems to dispute the entire point of my revised wording at my own PD, and the later ArbCom PD at workshop. Can you please try to accomodate Newyorkbrad's (and others) comments here in the alternative proposal? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. Something that includes a variation of Brad's statement would be appropriate. The wording I opposed was a bit broad and seemed to cast the rollback tool as simply an alternative revert. I must head away from the computer for now, but I will revisit this when I return later. If I do not address your point within the next day or so, please leave me a message to trigger an bright orange reminder. :) --Vassyana (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Vassyana; that would be appreciated. :) It's not been quite a day yet, but as I'm not sure when I'll be online next.... ;) Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Reviewing it again, I believe that your concern may already be covered by the revised proposal: "Other than to revert vandalism and edits by banned users who are not allowed to make those edits, rollback may also be used in circumstances where widely spread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, since such edits would be tedious to revert manually." (emphasis added) Your thoughts? --Vassyana (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Per Kirill's comment; The second sentence conflicts with the third in this version; "widely spread edits... by a misguided editor" could very easily be "good-faith content edit[s]". I also think discussing at a relevant talk page, while need not necessarily be compulsory in all cases, should at least be encouraged - this has been completely missed in the revised version. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
For the reasons I noted on my talk page, among others, thank you! :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

another question[edit]

hello again - i hope you won't mind my drawing this question to your attention. i feel it really does deserve a response from a member or members of Arb Com, since it looks very weird that the committee appears to be ignoring the fact that that RfC took place and that the community expressed very clear preferences on at least some of the issues. thanks for any clarity you can offer and/or get other Arb Com members to offer. Sssoul (talk) 05:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not mind at all! Please always feel welcome to draw my attention to a matter, ask a question, or raise any concerns. My talk page and inbox are always open. Thank you for drawing my attention to the discussion. I will respond there. --Vassyana (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thank you! i'll look forward to the statement you're formulating. i think i'm not the only observer who thought that the start of the voting was a signal that the "proposed decision" was pretty much finalized, but if that's not the case i shall go back to waiting patiently. thanks Sssoul (talk) 06:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
No problem. Arbs are still human, and it's always possible that we're misunderstanding something, overlooking a matter, or so forth. Plus, we can be a pretty diverse lot in our opinions and wikiphilosophy. As such, proposed decisions are often a working draft that gets tweaked, revised, reduced, and expanded as needed. Again, thank you for raising the issue and always feel welcome to leave me a message. --Vassyana (talk) 06:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) hello again - i see that someone's now entered a motion to close the "date linking/delinking" proceedings - have i missed the statement that acknowledges the RfC that Ryan Postlethwaite oversaw in march/april, or is that statement still forthcoming, or ... ? thanks Sssoul (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Since other arbs have agreed we need a bit more time for consideration, I have added two additional proposals for the RfCs. One has a bit more detail, including the third RfC. The other touchs a subpoint about the disputes over the RfCs themselves. --Vassyana (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

the info you requested[edit]

i provided the info you requested on the arbitration request for collect. take a look. --Brendan19 (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

why did you ask for this information which does show that collect violated his promises if you were only going to ignore it? also, i would argue that the community failed to solve the problem- just look at the RfC. so, if the RfC (ie community) failed during the last attempt to solve the problem how do you propose the community solve it this time? and keep in mind, this RfC was not the only one and was merely the latest (failed) try at dispute resolution with this individual. did you read what i wrote here- [16]? --Brendan19 (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I did not ignore it. It was part of my consideration. I asked for the information in order to have a more complete set of facts about the situation. I certainly see complaints about Collect's behavior, but I do not see a persuasive reason that ArbCom should currently accept a case. Additionally, to be perfectly forthright, some of the evidence given seems to be presented in a way that does not fit with an examination of the context. For example, he added some OR tags to the Drudge Report article. They were reverted due to a bulk revert targeting another change by Collect. In a single series of edits, he restores the tags (and makes other edits). That is one revert and it restored additions that were only incidentally removed. In fact, the person he reverted agreed with him, going as far as to entirely remove one of the sections that he had tagged.[17][18] Similarly, the other evidence presented seems to be mostly taken out of context and presented misleadingly in the worst possible light. For example, the Skull and Bones edits. He removes the section. Someone restores it and he does not revert the restoration, but rather removes an unreferenced questionable addition to the section. He also removes a link that is unrelated (or inaccurately associated with) the topic. This is hardly controversial stuff here. Some of the editing seems to be concerning (such as at Daily Mail) and some of it seems to be pushing the line (such as at Bobby Jindal), but the evidence does not show Collect's misconduct to be as extensive, severe, or malicious as indicated. WP:ANI can be used to seek to the intervention of uninvolved administrators and request community sanctions, as needed. WP:WQA can be used to deal with any unpleasant discussion conduct and comments. WP:EWN can be used to report cases of edit warring. However, should you avail yourself of those venues, I strongly recommend that you avoid hyperbole and utilize better evidence standards that take the diffs in context. --Vassyana (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thanks for your time, but i fear you completely missed the forest for the trees. thankfully, gwen gale came to the rescue [19], but i am not pleased with the whole convoluted process and the time it took to reach restrictions on collect. i am pleased w/ gwens actions and i think they are exactly what was needed. clearly, something was needed here, but everywhere we looked for action we found the buck being passed. you mention some of collects editing, but you seem to miss the big picture of him as a disruptive editor who attacks others and routinely gets articles shut down because of his stone walling and edit warring. you were too focused on his most recent behavior. i understand that you viewed that as being apropos, but it seemed to me that we got caught up in the minutia of his editing and did not focus on overall patterns of behavior. i realize you are not entirely to blame, but as one who is intimately involved in the process of it all i hope you will use this to examine the problems with dealing with those who skirt the rules of wikipedia. what if gwen gale hadnt decided to do the right thing? nothing would have been accomplished. a few arbitrators promised some action and werent able to provide it because of the ten day expiration. that seems like a significant flaw to me. if they cant get to what needs to be done w/in ten days then we need to either extend the deadline or get new, or more, arbitrators so that time isnt an issue.
also, your claim of hyperbole is absurd and only further lowers my opinion of your judgement. i wonder if you actually know what hyperbole is. i find it ridiculous that you would cavil about specific diffs after asking for proof to see if collect abided by his promises (which he did not). you made it seem that you would be open to reconsider based on such evidence, but you obviously had already made up your mind. next time just say that you have made up your mind so that others dont have to undergo exercises in futility.
i hope you learn something from all of this. i know i have. i realize that your duty is difficult and time consuming, but since you signed up for it i hope you take it seriously. i cant imagine dealing w/ this kind of thing on a daily basis. just going through all of this once w/ collect was enough to exhaust me. again, thanks for your time and best wishes and good luck in the future. --Brendan19 (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi! I notice that, while you're a sitting Arb elected during the most recent elections (when IIRC we said that identification would be compulsory) you aren't listed on the Identification noticeboard as having confirmed your identity with the WMF. I'm curious as to why this is so; is there a story behind this omission? Happymelon 23:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

[Courtesy note.] On the same note as that of Happy-melon's comment, you're being discussed on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. AGK 16:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I thought I had identified to the Foundation, but it is possible that I am mistaken. I have dropped Cary Bass an email to verify whether or not the Foundation has received a copy of an identifying document. If the WMF does not have such verification, I will rectify the matter as quickly as possible within the next couple of days. (Also, if that is the case, I apologize for the oversight on my part.) --Vassyana (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
My identity can now be verified as confirmed to the Foundation.[20] --Vassyana (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks Vassyana; that's a clean sweep of sitting Arbs now. Happymelon 09:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:RANDARB Amendment[edit]

Hi Vassyana, I was wondering if you could clarify whether or not I would be permitted to revert vandalism per the proposed amendment. TallNapoleon (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding that you should be able to revert blatant vandalism. It does not typically count as a revert for the purposes of our conduct rules. Many ArbCom revert restrictions explicitly note this exception. I see no reason why you should be prevented from doing so. If you have any further questions or concerns, please let me know. --Vassyana (talk) 01:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Palestine Article[edit]

There is an editor User:Mashkin who has literally taken over the Palestine article. He has made dozens of deletions of very well sourced material daily for the last two days without supplying any WP:RS sources to support his edits. It seems like he is not observing the general Israel Palestine article sanctions, and is being somewhat uncivil. Can you take a look at the Revision history of Palestine page and Talk:Palestine#Period following WWII and US - Mandate relations, and advise where I should go from here? harlan (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it would help if I did a bit of library research and quoted a sampling of sources on the issue? I could collect the quotes in a subpage and then you both could use them as a reference point for building a consensus. Thoughts? --Vassyana (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know. I have been considering a request for guidance from Arbcom about this and similar situations. In many instances, it can be illegal to disseminate or distribute material that publicly condones, denies, or trivializes the crimes described in either the Nuremberg Charter or the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. That's true for much of the English speaking world outside the United States.
Nonetheless, that sort of offensive material is frequently included in articles about the Arab-Israeli conflict or talk pages because editors claim that it is "more neutral". Many of the most fruitless discussions, e.g. "Occupied" vs. "Disputed" Territories, or "Unauthorized" vs. "Illegal" Settlements fall into this category. I pointed this out to Jayjg a while back in a thread about the Rome Statute and Israeli Settlement, and remarkably I've never heard from him since. see for example Talk:Israeli_settlement#Possible_Arbcom_Request, Talk:Israeli_settlement#The_Requested_Policy_Clarification, Talk:Israeli_settlement#Trivializing_War_Crimes. Talk:Israel#The_Applicability_of_the_Hague_IV_Convention, Talk:Israeli_settlement#The_Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court. Thoughts? harlan (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Arguing legalities will largely be a fruitless avenue of discussion, unless some content is illegal under Florida (United States) jurisdiction or violates broad widely accepted principles. (For example, some forms of plagiarism may not be illegal, but I think that the response would be similar to committing copyright violations.) Additionall, as a general point, pushing to exclude offensive or otherwise undesirable points of view is very unlikely to gain much traction. Trying to argue the legal status of such information for the purposes of exclusion is most likely to be counterproductive, engendering antipathy instead of sympathy. This is especially so where reliable sources as a body do not agree on the prequisite characterization of the information. The culture of Wikipedia is such that the "neutral point of view" is the cornerstone content principle. It is not about manufacturing or synthesizing a neutral position in relation to the various views. It is about maintaining editorial neutrality as the information presented by reliable sources is reported in our articles. If reliable sources disagree about the facts, their characterization, wording choices, or so on, our rules and culture indicate that the article(s) should proportionately present that spectrum of views. It would require a significant alteration of the rules, with an accompanying culture shift, to accomodate how you would prefer information to be handled. ArbCom has no authority to implement such fundamental changes to the basic rules. --Vassyana (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
In almost every instance I can imagine, I'm arguing legalities to support the inclusion of material that presents an opposing viewpoint. Wikipedia articles tend to dissimulate about the applicability of international criminal law in the case of Israel or trivialize blatant violations.
In the case of the debate over unauthorized vs. illegal outposts, and the disputed vs. occupied territories the Israeli Supreme Court explains that at the outset of their written opinions. They provide a recital of the background facts, i.e. that the territories are being held in belligerent occupation, and the outposts are illegal since the settlers have taken the law into their own hands. Trying to get that information into an article is usually next to impossible. I don't want to take up anymore space here, I'll go ahead and post a reply on the Palestine article talk page. Thanks harlan (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Google Books[edit]

Hi Vassyana, I seem to remember you once expressed a view on the appropriateness of including Google Books links in references (against, I believe). The topic is currently being discussed again, here, if you want to weigh in. Best wishes, JN466 13:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

soft-tissue injury[edit]

Thanks for your thoughts. They said six weeks' healing, and that prediction has been born out. They're 90% better! Tony (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Rejecting "Locus of dispute" as written[edit]

In the "Tang Dynasty" ArbCom case, the "locus of dispute" factfinding should be rejected as written.

A new, better locus of dispute should be adduced.

I write to encourage you to consider this when you vote, because the first and last sentences are fundamentally flawed.

NO to 1st sentence. The case originated when Teeninvestor rejected any and all inquiry relating to WP:V, WP:Burden and WP:RSUE, alleging vandalism and disruptive editing instead. This persistent confrontational strategy is endorsed and encouraged by those voting in support Newyorkbrad's locus of dispute. These votes effectively disregard Tenmei's locus, Teeninvestor's locus and, most importantly, Teeninvestor's restatment at Summarizing "more or less the entire dispute". This obfuscation marginalizes even the attempt to pursue a strategy of collaborative editing; and for this very practical reason, I could not disagree more with this sentence

NO to 3rd sentence. In the specific context of this case, it is procedurally unsound to adopt the expanded scope proposed by Teeninvestor and Caspian blue. One of the few areas of agreement acknowledged the initially limited focus of our case when it was opened. I could not disagree more with this sentence.

In support, I highlight a crucial fulcrum or pivot between "A" and "B" below:

"We appear to confront a small scale replica of what has occurred in other, wider disputes ... informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point of this escalating drama:
  • 1. "What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
  • 2. "What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does the source reflect that consensus?
  • 3. "Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
  • 4. "Are unsourced assertions being used?
"As others will know better than me, these four points are, unsurprisingly, at the center of most protracted disputes and are all violations of our core content policies, e.g., verifiability, no original research and neutrality."
"This guy is out of control, man." [emphasis added]

In this instance, Tenmei's paraphrase of Coren's moderating analysis was posted on the talk pages of all arguably interested participants at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. The "out of control" accusatory phrasing was repeated in diffs on the talk pages of PericlesofAthens and Arilang1234. This suggests a deliberate strategy rather than a merely transient outburst.

In these pivotal diffs, Teeninvestor cannot feign to have misunderstood my writing. These are plainly Coren's paraphrased words; and yet, this modest effort to frame collaborative editing issues was immediately converted into a contrived hostile encounter. This destructive pattern is reflected ad nauseam on the evidence and workshop pages. Despite the cumulative attacks, the edit history confirms my participation focused on issues, but this outcome tells me clearly that I was wrong to take the high road.

In voting to support this awkward "spin", ArbCom's counter-intuitive judgment effectively affirms that the contributions of Teeninvestor and Caspian blue were above reproach and I was not.

This alchemy is difficult to digest. ArbCom rewards what is bad and denigrates what is good. --Tenmei (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Your queries at the Dates case[edit]

Vassyana: oops, sorry I neglected to directly answer them. It seems too late now, but briefly, to pay you the politeness you've paid me:

  • Dabomb87 recommends shorter topic bans that are followed by parole circumstances. How long should those topic bans last? I'd have gone for six- rather than 12-month topic bans, alterable if the RFC/BAG thing still hasn't been worked out by then. I certainly hope it will be. I agree, civility paroles are labour intensive and messy: I think there's a good possibility that people will be more civil. I have certainly learnt from this experience, even though it has been absurdly long. I still think the idea I put that a trusted, uninvolved admin be appointed to keep an eye on things and report untoward happenings is worth investigating.
  • not enough effort was put into dispute resolution and basic consensus development—I asked a number of times that we all go to mediation, but this went down like a lead balloon. Privately, may I say that ArbCom might consider putting more resources into mediation: it doesn't seem to be equipped as it should be, and it is not fair to expect Ryan to manage that and be a clerk at the same time. Perhaps mediation skills might be taken more seriously in admin training. Perhaps ArbCom, rather than being put in an all-or-nothing situation, might be able to assign a mediator to a page, to nip things in the bud before they end up at ArbCom.
  • BAG: Sorry, I lack the technical knowledge to answer this (and I can't run bots—Mac). Until a few months ago, I didn't know what it is, and I'm still pretty ignorant of it.
  • would have happened on another issue if not date linking. What can ArbCom do to address these underlying circumstances? What other ways forward beyond the broad editing restrictions being currently considered could sufficiently address these circumstances? I don't believe for a minute that animosity WRT the dates/overlinking issues would readily spill over to other matters. On the other hand, the tension between Tennis expert and others does seem to have become a personalised problem in tennis-related articles (not really my kind of topic). My one attempt to understand him and heal the situation (from a distance, I think), and I got my fingers burnt. Yet I was able to engage him last month by asking his advice on an important aspect of a tennis article: it was a relief to communicate productively, even if only for a few exchanges. It desperately needs someone uninvolved and with clout to come in and mediate: tennis is not a happy place at the moment. By the same token, Locke Cole and one other (can't recall name) piped up at a userpage project I started late last year they were particularly interested in—that suggested that given the right environment, people can forget their differences.
  • There is disagreement over whether this broad restrictions are an appropriate means of resolving the concerns that lead us here or whether they are disproportional (or unduly punitive). Are there some "middle way" remedies that could provide a compromise between these two positions? It's a real psychological "downer" for "indefinite" bans/restrictions to be imposed; better would be a review of behaviour (by the uninvovled official admin) at fixed periods (three and six months, etc)—that would provide motivational gateways, incentives, more than the vague notion that one might apply to ArbCom at some indefinite time to ask for a lifting of a restriction (seems messy). Again, I think not enough use is made of trusted, mediation-type admins in an official role to heal, monitor, act as an anchor to achieve ArbCom's aims more effectively. The new policy, last time I looked, has written in more formally the practice of delegation.

Thanks for your questions, which appear to be practical and sensitive. In short, my response is (1) to lighten up on the restrictions/bans, which are perceived as punitive, even if ArbCom says they're not, and (2) to explore ways of combining admin and mediation roles in a new type of delegation by the Committee that might achieve deeper and more beneficial change. Tony (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - June 2009[edit]


Sorry just spotted your request of 26th, will get onto that and get you stuff by the weekend at the latest. --Snowded TALK 19:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

As promised some examples of the issue on Philosophy Pages. I've been involved in three. One here on the Is-Ought problem which tool some energy. A more difficult case (with the same editor) was on Philosophy where Rand's definition was inserted without any reference. Most of the editors concerned had no familiarity with Rand as a Philosopher (as you will know form the arbcom case she is little known outside her own group of followers) but it was finally tracked down. Details post discovery here. Finally here we see another editor hitting the Aristotle page. I know from other editors that there have been problems on any list of great philosophers. I can post a question on project philosophy if it would help. --Snowded TALK 16:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
If you are around any chance of a chat? I found myself being nominated for an RFA (given I am prepared to handle troublesome areas) but wanted to talk to you about the Rand case before posting any answers etc. there. Happy by email or in open forum. --Snowded TALK 14:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - Skype easiest ID snowded (Dave Snowden) --Snowded TALK 17:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


Important YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 08:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia "status quo" diffs[edit]

I see you guys are still grappling over the evidence diffs in the "status quo" FoF. It is of course difficult to cite diffs for a FoF of "stability", because stability is evidenced by the absence of diffs. But I believe the relevant evidence is all in the WP:MOSMAC page and its talk. The most pertinent summary links, I guess, might be these:

  • [21] (proposed guideline text, as of October 2007: "There is currently no clearly defined consensus about how to refer to the Republic of Macedonia in articles about Greece. [...] when in doubt, it is recommended to leave the status quo in each article as is." This was stable since October 2007.)
  • [22] (ChrisO's attempt at summarising the status quo: "in articles dealing only with the internal affairs of Greece […] use "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia")
  • [23] (Subsequent discussion about that summary: "The consensus was […] that there is no consensus, and that's what the body of the guideline text correctly describes. There is an agreement that status quo should remain stable; there most emphatically is no consensus that that status quo currently predominant in most Greece articles (using "fY...") should be mandated as obligatory for new content.")
  • [24] (tweak to summary at MOSMAC, which subsequently remained stable)

Fut.Perf. 08:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

ARBMAC2 desysop proposal idea[edit]

Hi! You asked for original ideas on the PD's talk page so I thought I'd offer one: topic desysop. I know this is something that has never been done before, but hey, what could be more original than trying a completely new thing? The idea is relatively simple; similarly to indefinite topic bans, a topic desysop would mean that the said administrator is not allowed to act as an administrator on a certain topic. The restriction can be lifted, should the administrator choose to go through a procedure similar to an RfA (though it would only affect their adminship in that topic area). Attempts to circumvent the restriction would result in a regular desysop. That's basically it, I hope my description of it makes sense... --Radjenef (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Your proposal[edit]

Hi Vassyana. I read your invitation here and would like to try to help. I'm off to work now, and I don't have any proposals to add at the moment, but I am interested in helping, if I can. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have created a sandbox for the invitation: User:Vassyana/Difficulty. --Vassyana (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

J&S application[edit]

Hi Vassyana,

I respectfully direct your attention to this. MeteorMaker (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice job[edit]

I was reviewing the history of "Sam Blacketer" and noticed that you initially opposed his adminship - this shows a good degree of savvy and foresight on your part. I see that you are also a member of "ArbCom," while I have heavy concerns about the group (though I'm admittedly a bit ignorant), it does make me feel a bit better knowing that you are on it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration takes a couple weeks?[edit]

Hi there. You mentioned that Arbitration can take a couple weeks. Is that because of the policy-amendment issues I mentioned? (I've filed for Arbitration before, and I'm pretty sure it took no more than a day). This is incredibly frustrating for me, because it takes an entire afternoon EVERY time I file for any kind of intervention (done it three times just for this one issue already) as well as EVERY time I have to sit down and do war with these people (with as much absolutely useless circle-running now as on the very first day). I've done nothing at all on the issue for the last 3 days, just because of how time-consuming and draining it is, so I needed a break. Thanks for your efforts, but can something be done about this? I will remind you also that one week of "request for comment" resulted in 0 commenters, so I'm just drowning in article-hawks that I'm certain (for myself) are biased. (if nothing else can be done, at least an official comment on Crit-section policy on the ArbCom listing would help a huge deal). Thanks again.--[ Dario D. ] 00:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Accepting or declinging a case may take only a day or two. However, the procss of an arbitration case can take quite some time. There is a presentation of evidence and a workshop page for decision proposals. We will wait at least a week, usually more, to ensure that everyone involved in, or watching, the matter has an opportunity to present evidence and offer suggested resolutions. After that, an arbitrator will post a proposed decision that then goes through a phase of voting and revision. Another point to consider regarding arbitration is that we do not usually settle content disputes, but rather focus on conduct concerns.
That said, I would seriously recommend that you take a break and edit some other topics for a while. If you are feeling compelled to edit war and/or view the matter as "do[ing] war", it is especially important that you take a step back and have a breather. If this subject is quite so frustrating and draining, taking some time off the topic is certainly the best decision. There are (literally) millions of articles that could use some attention. --Vassyana (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


Hey, Vassyana. I think you accidentally typed five tildes instead of four here, and your username isn't showing up. Didn't feel right replacing it myself, so I thought I'd tell you. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. --Vassyana (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TDC[edit]

Would you mind taking a look at this sockpuppetry case? Avraham told me you believed that TDC, Here Cometh the Milkman, and CENSEI may be related based on the evidence sent through func-l. Thanks, Icestorm815Talk 04:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added a comment there indicating the strength and general nature of my opinion. I do not believe there is much, if any, doubt about the relationship. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to let me know. --Vassyana (talk) 11:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your assistance. One more quick question. Would a anon. only acc. create block on the IP range of be safe to block? Would you mind running a check to see? Thanks. Icestorm815Talk 17:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind. :) Icestorm815Talk 17:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


Hi Vassyana. Did anything come of the discussion to widen CU lattitude on Israel-Palestine checks? Are people still mulling it over? Thanks. IronDuke 19:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think my colleagues felt this was a matter beyond the scope and authority of ArbCom. I would recommend a policy and/or broad community discussion to address the concerns and issues. If I can be of assistance in this regard, please let me know. Also, if such a discussion is raised, I would like to be informed. SlimVirgin made a very good response to my questions and concerns. I believe it would be good to persue the matter and see if community consensus can be formed. --Vassyana (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply. I have mixed feelings about changing/forming policy here. OTOH, the subject is plagued with really obvious socks. OTOH, so are a lot of contentious issues on WP. If it solved the problem, I'd sure be for it, but there's no way to know ahead of time, I guess. IronDuke 20:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


Hello again. You might want to take a look at Special:Contributions/ and his location. Dan (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved: Blocked and labelled as obvious sock.

Let me know if you have any further concerns. --Vassyana (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Dan (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

English Qabalah[edit]

I don't know if this meets the usual criteria for semi-protection, but the page served as the battleground for a war between IP socks of two banned users: Eky of course, and User:EdwardLeeFrampton. The latter is still at it. (I assume here that the second non-Eky IP address at Talk:English_Qabalah#Removal_Criterion_.26_Vanity_Edition was the same person as the first.) He seems to return every time he gets a new number for the sole purpose of plugging a book that non-Eky people have deemed unreliable and non-notable. Dan (talk) 07:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be too active right now. Looking at the history, the activity seems to be sporadic and limited at most to a couple of changes needing reverting in a day (at the most active). Generally, requests for semi-protection will be declined in cases like this. I will take a look over the IPs and implement blocks as necessary. If it gets to a point where there are multiple such changes in a day or continued efforts over a few days, let me know and I will semi-protect the article. As always, if I can further help, please let me know. --Vassyana (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)