User talk:Vassyana/Archive014

Thanks

The recent issues with Kirill and Rlevese really bring home the point that while we're quick to criticize when arbcom does something wrong, we rarely thank you guys for the job you do. Sometimes I agree with what you do, sometimes I disagree, but I never doubt that you're doing what you think is right. I'm as guilty as anybody -- given the culture around this place I don't want it to look like I'm sucking up. But screw it, I'm going to say what I want.
So: thanks Vassyana. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Typo in your recent motion

I happen to have Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification on my watchlist, and I noticed a typo in the motion that you just posted. However, I don't think it's appropriate for someone else to copyedit an arb's motion on that page, so I wanted to bring it to your attention. You have the word "pursue" spelled as "persue". Regards, Mlaffs (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Iff i maek obveeus spellin orr grammer misteaks, pls fixify thm. :) --Vassyana (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL — I'll keep that in mind! Mlaffs (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Be careful doing spelling corrections. The last time I made a couple fixes of obvious typos on an article talk page I got a horde of angry screamers on my talk page. And the edit was used as evidence and held against me by Arbcom as a clear indicator of naughtiness. So although I saw Vassayana's misspelling also, and wanted to fix it when I made a comment in the same thread, after my experience I figured I better just leave the mistakes in place. So much for being a collaborative wiki. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I encourage people to correct any mistakes that I make. Certainly, I fail to the harm in correcting typos. If I make some blatant errors like that, I appreciate the courtesy and effort of other editors in cleaning up my mistakes. So please, always feel welcome to correct my typos! --Vassyana (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity Newsletter - July 2009

The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter

Archives  |  Tip Line  |  Editors The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter Issue X - July 2009 Project news The Christianity project and its related projects currently have 76 FAs, 8 FLs, and 148 GAs. We gained new recognized content in each field, with 4 FAs promoted, 2 FLs, and 3 GAs. Congratulations and a big thank you to all those who worked on these articles! Member news It was a big month for new members, with User:RandomNumberSee, User:Per Ardua, User:Muzhogg, User:Arlen22, User:Scotchorama, and User:Jaybird vt joining, bringing us up to 292 listed members. Thanks to you all, and a special welcome to our new members! Other news I am still working on the categorization matter. With any luck, we should have some results by the end of the month. There are also some discussions regarding project related activities at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum. One issue in particular that might be addressed is possible elections of new coordinators. Anyone interested in serving in such a capacity is more than welcome to indicate as much. Related projects news The WikiProject Films has recently created a new task force for Christian films. All interested parties are welcome to join and contribute. Member contest of the month The previous contests are still ongoing, because of the extreme amount of time the categorization is taking me. Anyone who can bring any of the few Stub class articles among the project's 1000 most often accessed articles by the end of July will get an award. Please see the details Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity#Project challenge of the month. Christianity related news Pennsylvania Amish farmer jailed for outhouse violations Obama expands Bush's faith-based initiatives Relics of 39 saints found by British Museum From the Members Welcome to the Tenth issue of the WikiProject Christianity newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do. It has been a long time since the last coordinators election. There is a lot for people to do, and I certainly would welcome seeing any individuals with an interest in such a position put themselves forward as candidates. I in particular would very much like to see some degree of "specialization" in the coordinators, so that, for instance, we might have someone knowledgable about some of the specific Christian faith traditions or other main subjects, like Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, Mormonism, the Jehovah's Witnesses, art, theology, and so on. If any parties who have experience with some of our faith- or- subject-based content would be interested in being candidates, I would love to see them do so. Please feel free to take part in the discussion regading what the minimum number of category items is, and how to deal with the non-qualifying categories, on the General Forum page. John Carter (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC) To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter is automatically delivered by ~~~~

John Carter (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

AE/AE

Thanks for the heads up. Should I comment, and if so where? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I would be the one to start the thread. My question is: is the thread right where the link you put on my page takes me to? I have never done anything a AE so excuse my ignorance. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• Vassayana, thank you very much for helping move the discussion to the appropriate forum. It's been a frustrating experience to see the difficuly of getting the bans reviewed. The lack of checks and balances on admin actions and the refusal of th be blocking admin to provide any evidence or diffs of wrongdoing is very troubling to me. My investigations show good faith contributions and good collaboration from the banned editors while those working against them are pushing a particular POV and abusing various policies and procedures to get their way. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm glad that I could be helpful. I knew what needed to be done, so (for the reasons I note at the clarification thread) I did it ({{sofixit}}). There's some good hardworking people at AE. Between their seasoned feedback and some input from content noticeboard regulars, we should be able to sort this out within a few days and put it to rest. If you ever need assistance in navigating the sometimes byzantine processes or if you ever want a suggestion on where to get outside input for an issue, please let me know. Similarly, I have a lot of experience with content dispute resolution and would be happy to provide advice about content conflicts or make sure you (or the situation you're observing) get set up with a good mediator for the circumstances. If I could be of assistance in another way, please feel free to ask. Be well! --Vassyana (talk) 05:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana, I want to thank you as well and should have earlier. I know setting this up is at best a pain in the ass. You have done a real service to a number of individuals but also to the integrity of Wikipedia, so, thanks. By the way, while I am not suited to be mediator even if people asked me, I wouldn't want it ... but I do have some ideas for mediation. If this goes to mediation and you know before I do, let me know - if you think my thoughts would be welcomed. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here's an article that I find problematic: Matt Sanchez. I am concerned that the article violates our BLP and NPOV standards by giving undue weight to content intended to smear the individual. I have tried to address the problems [1] and after being reverted left the smears in the opening paragraphs (they're already covered in the body) but tried adding in Sanchez's own views [2]. I've been reverted each time. What is the best approach to get the situation resolved? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This AE business is a blatant attempt at wikilawyering. There is no "black side" vs. a "white side". There is a "racist side", which thinks that there is a meaningful dichotomy of "white Egypt vs. black Egypt", and there is an "academic side" of an actual scholarly ethnographic approach. The blocks handed out were not "anti-black", they were "anti-racist" and "pro-academic" as is good and proper within Wikipedia's principle of WP:RS. If there were any racist editors pushing a "white Egypt" they would meet exactly the same treatment as the team of racist editors banned over their pushing of a "black Egypt". Why the hell do we go out of our way to indulge editors who have shown their racist worldview, and their insistence to push racist points of view in Wikipedia? I am all for documenting racism in Wikipedia. But articles on racism should not be written by racists any more than articles on penguins should best be written by penguins. WP:TIGERS. --dab (𒁳) 12:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

DanaUllman's topic ban

There is some confusion at AN/I over a series of topic and indefinite bans you imposed upon Mr. Ullman last year, and whether the topic ban is still in effect. Mr. Ullman has returned after his one-year vacation, and is indulging in much of the same behavior as before. If you have a minute, would you pop over and clarify? Thanks, Skinwalker (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal

In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I have created a new page. I hope you will come and do what you can to help make it work: Wikipedia: Areas for Reform Slrubenstein | Talk 18:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I made a couple of proposals and will review it further when I have a bit more online time on Wednesday or Thursday. Thank you for the invitation to the discussion! Vassyana (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Falun Gong

The same spiral of argumentation that has permeated the page for the past five years is being re-launched. I urge you to come and mediate the issue and give your take, as soon as possible. Otherwise it will be another endless and unproductive discussion. These articles get nowhere without serious third-party intervention. As you may already know the article has already gone to every possible forum for dispute resolution on Wikipedia, no less than nine times. So the seriousness of the disputes on the article is very, very clear. Colipon+(T) 15:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding areas for reform

Based on this edit, I think you may be interested in this, particularly the Rights section. → ROUX ₪ 06:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a good link, thanks! I may not comment on it this evening, but I will try to do so by Wednesday or Thursday. Vassyana (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ping. Just keeping this on your radar--I know you're very busy. WP:DEVCOM may also be relevant to your interests. → ROUX ₪ 03:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

thoughts on facilitation

Hiya Vassyana, your thoughtful input would be welcome here: Community Facilitation - user:Sam and I were discussing related ideas over the past few weeks. It's meant to be a totally open way for people interested in facilitation to join and help organize and improve discussion of [often long-term] issues... which currently get brought up briefly and lost many times in succession.

Cheers, +sj+ 03:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Hi there. Thank you for taking the trouble to assist us in the dispute in the above article. I have just noticed that there is an Alternative Views project, and that you are involved in it. Is it perhaps appropriate that the Race of the Ancient Egyptian articles should form part of this project, and if so, how should this be undertaken? Your advice would be most welcome. Wdford (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to leave a message on the project talk page. Politely ask how the topic area might fit into the project's mission and what advice the project members might be able to offer about the topic area. I would prefer to defer to editors who are more active in the project at the moment. --Vassyana (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Good luck with the job hunting. Wdford (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Persecution of Falun Gong, NPOV tag, please advise

Hello Vassyana,

Please take a look here Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Sources_.26_NPOV_tag and here Talk:Persecution_of_Falun_Gong_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Tags and please advise. My point is that it is welcomed to have third party assessment on it, but after that the tag must come down because otherwise it has no meaning to stay there other then to generate Fear, uncertainty and doubt. My point is that these gratuitous techniques must stop and everybody should just stick to the facts. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Your request for assistance

Thank you for the kind words, and your vote of confidence that I could help you out at the Falun Gong article. Unfortunately, I simply do not have the time to help clean up out yet another contentious article... I am already engaged in cleaning up several others. Add to that the fact that off-Wiki I am in the midst of a job search (not easy in this economy) and it come down to my needing to spend less time on Wikipedia and not more. I wish you luck, and good editing. 14:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#DanaUllman

Hey, Vassyana!

You were the last admin to deal with Dana Ullman before the Arbcom ban. Could you have a look at this? He's resumed old behaviour. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 23:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Advice

I will ask your advice about the last topic in "talk homeopathy" very soon . Please keep watching the conversation.--JeanandJane (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please always feel free to leave me a message, whether you have concerns, seek advice, or otherwise need feedback from me. I will always try to do my best to explain and/or assist. --Vassyana (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Now your assistance is required, The article is tagged - the situation justifies it and I m asking you to protect the tag and the article until the dispute is over. Best--JeanandJane (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

With all sincere respect, absolutely not. The tag was added. It has not been reverted even once. There has barely been any discussion about it. Protecting the article would run contrary to how we handle protection. I am not inclined to ignore the rule in the absence of a compelling reason to believe that it will result in disruptive commentary and/or significant edit-warring. Also, I'd be far more inclined to reward such disruption with topic bans and blocks, rather than article protection. Taking a disagreement over something as trivial as tagging to disruptive levels is a strong sign that direct sanctions are morely likely to prevent the disruption than article protection. --Vassyana (talk) 05:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason I asked you this is to avoid an edit war over the tag which has happened many times in the past.

If we don't ignore the rule, this tag is required by the situation in the talk page; (which I find creative and sometimes amusing). Hope everything will work well and everyone will be reasonable. --JeanandJane (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I m afraid I was right. User Verbal for instance keeps removing the tag ( in violation to our policy ) without even participate in our discussion. What do you intend to do to stop the disruption from this user? I have tried and try to act according to the rules hence I asked your intervention on the tag twice. Edit wars are not productive.--JeanandJane (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather you spent time on showing which parts of the article need to be changed and why, and getting support for that view, than by tagging the article without justification. If you get consensus for changes then we can make those changes. Suggest a few small changes, supported by multiple RS, in separate sections and we can discuss those. It seems you're not getting support for the large changes you are proposing from the majority of editors. Verbal chat 15:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

According to policy the tag is justified ( long ago ). Please assume good faith and respect that more than one editors dipsute the neutrality of the article. There is no point to discuss if you don't respect that.--JeanandJane (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The police?? I see no justification for the tag on the article talk page. Please provide one and get support for that view, or concentrate on improving the article. Verbal chat 15:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Lets see what Vassayna has to comment. I m confident that Vassyane will not ignore the rule.--JeanandJane (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a note for anyone reading, JandJ originally said according to the police the tag was justified, hence my lack of comprehension. I have yet to see a justification for the tag, and I have yet to see any of your suggested changes be accepted. I do not think policy, practice, or the good of the project and community in general agrees with you on this one. The goal here is to create an encyclopaedia. Verbal chat 17:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'll be perfectly honest with both you: I'm am almost entirely unsympathetic to all sides of tagging disputes. I find them, at best, to be counterproductive and a waste of energy. Don't argue about what fits the consensus, what disputes need to be highlighted, how they should be labelled, and so on. Focus on content discussion and garnering consensus for revisions and changes, thus proving where there is a significant presence of consensus (or lack thereof). Any argument over tags will be resolved as the discussion plays out, one way or another. --Vassyana (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I fully endorse that sentiment. Let's move on to improving the project and not waste effort. Thanks, Verbal chat 17:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Well. Thanks for your opinion and sentiments on the tags but the question is not whether you personally find the NPOV tag helpful or not but what the Wikipedia policy says and if you are going to enforce that policy. Or you are going to ignore the rules because one side of the neutrality dispute demands it? --JeanandJane (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not state whether or not I found the tag useful or appropriate. I gave my opinion about disputes over tagging. Answering your question, there is no rule to ignore. There is no policy that mandates the use of article tags like {{POV}}. Please focus on discussion and consensus building. Seek assistance in those efforts as there's a need. If this conflict erupts into a full-blown edit war or a novella of arguments, I will intervene to stop the disruption. --Vassyana (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought that this was the policy and I asked you how can you enforce it.

Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed. However, repeatedly adding the tag is not to be used as a means of bypassing consensus or dispute resolution. If your sole contribution to an article is to repeatedly add or remove the tag, chances are high that you are abusing your "right" to use the tag.--JeanandJane (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC) In your view there is not dispute on neutrality? Because multiply editors in the talk page and at the administrators board say there is. As you understand if there is no recognition that there is part of the community which disputes the neutrality of article the discussion is pointless. --JeanandJane (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack?

Hello,

When you have time, please see here: Talk:Falun_Gong#User:PCPP_edit_warring. As I see it John and Olaf where conducting a discussion based on substantiated Wiki principles. However if I see it correctly this is attempted to be "diverted" again by personal attacks against Olaf. Am I seeing things biased? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

To be honest? A bit, though in all earnestness that is not a slight against you. It's perfectly normal human behavior to be quicker to see the wrongdoing on one side and much slower on the other. Even with a conscious effort, it can be difficult to see things in a perfectly neutral fashion when you are in the thick of things. We're all human and even I am not infallible, though I sometimes like to pretend that I am. *chuckle* :-) More to the point, you are correct that Olaf and John were engaging in substantive discussion. You are also correct that there were personal comments about Olaf. However, personal accusations came from both pre-existing sides of the dispute, not just one. Who started it doesn't matter. If the matter repeats itself, don't trade words. Politely but firmly refocus the conversation on the substantive discussion without spurring on the uncivil editor. Focus on the worthwhile conversations and ignore the personal comments. The person will go away or stop when they stop getting a rise out of people, or they will be sanctioned by an administrator under the arbitration provisions. I hope this response helps. If I can further clarify or be of assistance, please let me know. --Vassyana (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind remarks, and yes I do agree with the don't feed the troll policy, and I'm sure these kind of remarks will help on the talk page as well. As a personal justification, I have a bit of a problem in taking absolutely the don't feed the troll policy, that is I think it's not the only policy that we human's react to. I'm thinking that there is also another human trait "Silence gives consent". In the sense that if something is not challenged that it must be true. Then if I'm to consider these 2 quotes, it does make balancing things a bit harder, when "unjustified slander" is spread, but I can assure you that I'm trying my best to follow this advise: "Politely but firmly refocus the conversation on the substantive discussion without spurring on the uncivil editor." --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding: "It's perfectly normal human behavior to be quicker to see the wrongdoing on one side and much slower on the other. Even with a conscious effort, it can be difficult to see things in a perfectly neutral fashion when you are in the thick of things." => It's really nice that you pointed this out, because we cultivators really know from experience how hard it is sometimes to look inside and to detect our own faults and how easy it is to look outside and spot the others perceived faults. And yet, we do know that only by looking inside to spot our own faults, can one and it's environment improve.  :) --HappyInGeneral (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• I was quite angry and frustrated by the goings-on at the Falun Gong series of articles that I decided some months ago to keep a wide berth for my own sanity, and I completely understand how it must have been like adjudicating on Scientology. Nevertheless, someone requested that I comment there, and so I have. It's a response to you, but is actually a more broad take following my experience. I have not read any of the previous discussions there or elsewhere because I frankly do not want to waste any time on it. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Request for assistance

Thanks for the invite. I tend to work better if I am assigned a narrow, specific task. That way, I can orient myself towards a goal rather than unleashing my tentacles haphazardly like a bull in a China shop, which unfortunately, happens occasionally. So with that said, if you could give me some kind of "trial" task to complete (whatever it might be) I might be able to contribute to your overall cleanup effort. Let me know. Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I just created User:Viriditas/Falun Gong to see if I can identify some issues. I probably won't have anything there until 24 hours from now, but you might want to check it then. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I just finished reading through the article and I've found many issues. I'll begin updating my review later tonight. Viriditas (talk) 05:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser access

Hello. You now have CheckUser access on en.wikipedia. Please subscribe to checkuser-l and contact me if you're on IRC, so I give you access to the private channel. Cheers, guillom 14:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement on Falun Gong article?

Hello Vassyana. Please see the latest discussion, and the edit history of the Falun Gong article. I think the diffs will make things clear. 20kb of text was removed from the article after some editors discussed it a bit; a sentence was put at the top directing readers to subpages. I reverted this and asked for more discussion and consensus to be reached. Neither I or Olaf had participated in discussion of the changes. Originally they were set forward as "suggestions", and then user:Ohconfucius boldly implemented them. In itself, this may not be such a problem, given that it's clear these were just suggestions, and someone went out on a limb to see whether it was acceptable. Ideally, you know, in this kind of situation there would be a lot more discussion before making such huge changes to this article, given all the acrimony surrounding it. Anyway, then I reverted it because it was not discussed properly, but it has been reverted again. I'm unwilling to do another revert right now, because I would basically consider that edit warring. Peredman is now seeking discussion on the "new structure," but I will not participate in any discussion of the new structure until the deleted text is restored. It would be meaningless. I understand the current circumstances to be an unfortunate and gross abuse of the consensus-buliding process. Since you are the mediator, can you please advise some course of action, or take up a course of action yourself. The alternative is that I could file an AE request, I guess, but I'm not sure that will be best. At the moment the article needs to be restored to how it was 8 hours ago (I think), before the 20kb of text was removed. Then the discussion can begin.--Asdfg12345 15:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana, can you please look at the recent remark I made on the talk page. You may need to do more than urge politeness and consensus-building. In these circumstances there has been a clear trangression of this. That needs to be sorted out before things can pick up again where they left off. That kind of thing simply cannot be allowed, it's just not right, it's not legitimate conduct in these circumstances. I think you need to make clear that the text should be restored, then discussion. Doing otherwise makes the discussion process a joke. Discussion is supposed to be about what changes we should make to the article, not assessing the value of changes that have already been made. Please consider the composition of the editors involved in the discussion to delete the content and make a fair evaluation about whether they acted within the spirit of wikipedia, and decide accordingly. This isn't a straight content dispute, it's a direct transgression of the consensus-building process. I haven't read the AE guidelines carefully yet, maybe they apply here. If you have nothing more to say on this (apart from your statement on the talk page), then I'll see whether a case of arbitration enforcement over these deletions is appropriate. If we go forward from here without sorting this out, it undermines the whole process. This needs to be dealt with before we can move forward. Please explain if you disagree.--Asdfg12345 17:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Vassyana. You have new messages at Talk:Falun_Gong.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you! HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

a request: am i in the right forum?

hello again Vassyana, and sorry to trouble you again, but: i see that you're involved with WP:MEDCAB and i'm hoping you could have a look at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-08-03/Little_Richard to let me know whether i'm seeking help in the right place. since the case involves an editor repeatedly making (vague) threats and personal attacks, some kind of intervention really seems needed. i don't want to seem to be "forum shopping", but if the Mediation Cabal isn't the right forum, i'd like to know that so i can request that it be deleted there and seek intervention elsewhere. thanks for any advice and/or assistance you could offer ... Sssoul (talk) 09:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It is possible that informal mediation may help. The editor seems a bit unfamiliar with the expectations of our content policies, with his citations ranging from solid to deeply questionable. A MedCab volunteer could help facilitate communication and assist in educating the editor. (It would be useful if you explicitly requested such assistance on the case page.) It may also be helpful to solicit outside input from WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN as appropriate to show the community opinion about such edits and sources. It would also benefit the situation if you requested the presence of some outside editors from related WikiProjects. If these avenues fail, I would recommend a user conduct RfC to make a firm attempt at communicating the issues to the editor. Failing all that, your recourse would be to request administrative intervention to deal with the nonresponsiveness of the editor to feedback and good faith attempts at correction. I hope this advice helps! --Vassyana (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

thank you very much, Vassyana - i will add a specific request for help with communication & education to the MedCab case page. meanwhile, do you mean that i should seek help via WP:RSN and WP:NPOVN before waiting for a MedCab mediator? again, i don't want to seem to be "forum shopping". Sssoul (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I see nothing wrong with attempting to gain greater clarity and community feedback on specific issues. On the contrary, such actions usually make it easier for a mediator or uninvolved administrator to decipher the situation and understand how policy is applied by the community to the specific dispute. If I can be of further assistance or answer any other questions, please do not hesitate to let me know. Be well! --Vassyana (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Questions regarding Falun Gong topic ban

Hello, Vassyana. I have a couple of questions regarding the six month Falun Gong topic ban that was imposed on me by User:Shell Kinney.

1. I did not know that extended topic bans can be given by any uninvolved administrator without discussion. It seems that no members of the ArbCom were involved. Is this standard procedure?
2. I feel that the case was not investigated properly, and my constructive editing and consensus-seeking after the mediation case were not taken into account. Are there ways to seek a correction, or to get comments from the members of the ArbCom?

Regards, ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 17:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Hello, I leave this message to inform you that I am seeking amendment and an ArbCom review of the sanction imposed by administrator User:Shell Kinney. See [3]. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 18:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

ANI on DanaUllman

As your suggestion is up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Choices, this is to notify you that I've added 2 more choices also. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Falun Gong

I see that you are the mediator here. Can you make sure that Falun Gong is shown to the people in the correct way? I'm sure you understand what I mean. Make sure those anti-FLG people don't get their way!--FalunGongDisciple (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't know what archiving means. I thought some random troll was deleting things. Theleike (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to suggest that you are a troll. :D!Theleike (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, is there such thing as a WYSIWYG editor for wiki? How do pros edit wikipedia? Writing all this code reminds me of writing html in a text file when now everyone uses an environment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theleike (talk • contribs) 03:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Mediator, the situation here is worsening. You must step in!--FalunGongDisciple (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

a bit of light relief....

I was asked to peer review this one --> Badnjak, and thought it might pique your interest as well :) --> Wikipedia:Peer review/Badnjak/archive1. Makes a change from the usual argy-bargy. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

dePRODing of articles

Hello Vassyana, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD templates you added to a number of articles were removed:

• PROD removed from Christian figures of speech, by User:Esprit15d, with summary '(rm prod. Wikipedia has precedent for articles that define jargon specific to a community, profession or other specific field. See Category:Technical terminology)'
• PROD removed from Glossary of Jewish terms, by User:Calathan, with summary '(deprod - Subject was discussed at AfD before being split - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms)'

Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Mythdon proposal at ANI

This message is being sent to inform the Arbitration Committee of a sanction proposal forbidding me from editing Arbitration Committee pages and talk pages. Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Mythdon and Arbitration Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC) So I have to ask... Does WP:BURDEN apply at an article level? When an entire article is unsourced, is there a burden on anyone to provide sources? If so with whom does it lie, and how do we enforce it? Blueboar (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:Burden?

You may recall this crisp comment at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#WP:BURDEN at the article level (permanent link)

Mercilessly edit the article down to a stub version. The burden of restoring any information from the longer unsourced version would clearly fall on the editor(s) reinstating the claims. --Vassyana 22:24, 18 August 2009

I responded on that talk page but it seems to have escaped your attention:

Vassyana -- This point of view is reasonable, and it is consistent with WP:V. Nevertheless, in a context informed by experiences you don't share, this optimistic formulation is worrisome. It is incompatible with the complex games which are likely to ensue. The disjunctive rationale which your short sentence reveals is frustrating, perverse, and unhelpful. I am unable to respond effectively to the issue Blueboar presents, but I feel justified in rejecting this overly tidy response. Please try again to analayze and respond to Blueboar's query. There is no question that WP:Burden is a pivotal and easily misunderstood concept. Perhaps a constructive point will become clearer if you try to express yourself in different words. --Tenmei 23:42, 18 August 2009

Your very clear, unambiguous policy statement encouraged the following edits at Joseon tongsinsa:

• 1 diff 00:05, 19 August 2009 Tenmei (11,603 bytes) (→List of embassies: unsourced names replaced with 대사) (undo)
• 2 diff 00:10, 19 August 2009 Tenmei m (11,563 bytes) (→Missions chronology)
• 3 diff 00:12, 19 August 2009 Tenmei (11,514 bytes) (→History: tweaking citation)
• 4 diff 00:14, 19 August 2009 Tenmei (11,775 bytes) (→References: adding Nussbaum citation)

undo edit: diff 09:32, 19 August 2009 Historiographer (11,937 bytes) (Explanation was not enough.)

• 5 diff 13:49, 19 August 2009 Tenmei (11,775 bytes) (Undid revision 308850701 by Historiographer -- see talk)
• 6 diff 14:09, 19 August 2009 Tenmei (11,704 bytes) (→Missions chronology: tweaking sentences -- presenting only data which can be sourced)
• 7 diff 14:12, 19 August 2009 Tenmei (11,721 bytes) (→List of embassies: repairing link --unknown)
• 8 diff 14:14, 19 August 2009 Tenmei (11,658 bytes) (→History: tightening sentence)
• 9 diff 14:17, 19 August 2009 Tenmei m (11,658 bytes) (moving headnotes to section needing closer attention)
• 10 diff 14:18, 19 August 2009 Tenmei (11,659 bytes) (moving illustration to upper right corner)
• 11 diff 14:20, 19 August 2009 Tenmei m (11,666 bytes)
• 12 diff 15:03, 19 August 2009 Tenmei (11,729 bytes) (enlarging image in upper right corner + tweaking caption)

These modest edits were preceded by talk page comments; and this Talk:Joseon Tongsinsa#Unsourced material thread was subsequently amplified:

• 1 diff 23:56, 18 August 2009 Tenmei (65,101 bytes) (→Problematic, un-translated Korean-language reference citation: no reason for this subject to lie fallow)
• 2 diff 13:53, 19 August 2009 Tenmei m (65,440 bytes) (→Unsourced material)
• 3 diff 13:56, 19 August 2009 Tenmei (65,478 bytes) (→Unsourced material: clarification)
• 4 diff 14:31, 19 August 2009 Tenmei m (65,937 bytes) (→Unsourced material)
• 5 diff 14:33, 19 August 2009 Tenmei (66,176 bytes) (→Unsourced material: tweaking)

Please watchlist Joseon Tongsinsa and Talk:Joseon Tongsinsa. --Tenmei (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please contribute with an oppinion here

Hello, Could you please contribute with an oppinion here: Talk:Reports_of_organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China#The_Situation:_A_Summary. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Dilip_rajeev

Since you're familiar with the situation, could you comment on the latest request? Obviously if enforcement were to happen, its not going to be a site ban, but it looks like a topic ban from Falun Gong might be in order here. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 20:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Human Rights Torch Relay

If you have some time please provide us with an input at this RFC on 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay article and this Merger Contest. Thank You! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sanctions (re:your comments about me at ANI)

If you had any commitment to NPA and BLP Bluemarine would have been banned long ago for his homophobic attacks. I still do not understand why Arbcom didn't do that a year ago. In my time on Wikipedia I have seen a gay editor abused for his sexuality and told his religious faith is invalid because of his sexuality (this by an admin, the editor in question never returned), gay editors accused of paedophilia with no response from admins beyond a vague "tut tut", I have seen many actively bigoted editors (not just Bluemarine) coddled and tolerated in a way that would be unthinkable for racist or anti-semitic editors, and the abject failure of admins and Arbcom to behave in anything approaching a responsible manner about this. The Bluemarine/ASE situation is a symptom of some very deep-seated homophobic attitudes and the failure of any "trusted" or "respected" members of the community to give a damn. DuncanHill (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I cannot answer for matters that occured in the past that I had no part in. I can say that Bluemarine is not doing anything wrong at the current time. Regardless of what BM may have done in the past, Allstarecho's current behavior is wrong. ASE (and his supporters, including you) seems to be nursing old wounds and using a tu quoque defense for the wrongdoing on ASE's part. That said, if going forward you encounter any problems like you describe, please raise them to my attention. I will do my best to address them in a firm fashion. Personal attacks and BLP vios of all sorts should not be tolerated. (If it is any source of comfort or confidence for you, I belong to an LGBT friendly Episcopal parish and wrote the article on Ellen Barrett.) --Vassyana (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

ASE was basically blocked for asking if another editor's actions fell within a topic ban. Do you think that such a block is likely to a) reduce drama, b) increase trust in or respect for admins, c) benefit the encyclopædia in any other way, or d) none of the above? The question of whether or not Bluemarine should be allowed to post on the MS article talk page is a legitimate one, and it appears that ASE tried to raise this by email yet had no response. Bluemarine was strongly urged to edit away from his traditional area of interest (i.e. himself), yet this he has signally failed to do. He has not confined his comments on the MS article to the article's talk page, but has taken them to the talk page of another editor (who seems very willing to edit the article accordingly), as well as using his own talk page as something approaching an article fork. Since the expiry of his arbcom block he has called ASE a pervert and an admin actually had the gall to re-insert this attack after it had been removed. I'm sorry but I simply do not (or rather cannot) believe admins/arbs who claim that personal attacks will not be tolerated yet appear to fail to take action on this kind of thing. Again I will say, to attempt to deal with ASE's behaviour in isolation from that of Bluemarine is at best going to fail, and at worst will be counter-productive and ultimately damaging. DuncanHill (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Allstarecho was blocked for violating the restriction imposed here. Matt Sanchez is not some obscure topic and Bluemarine is anything but an under-the-radar editor. There are tons of eyes on both the article and the editor. Thus, there's not even ground for a flimsy excuse of ignoring the rule for the benefit of the project, but ASE's report does seem to be raising a fuss to make a point in addition to violating his unquestionably clear restriction. If there are real problems with Bluemarine's editing and/or restriction violations, ASE acting on it in any way is one of the most counterproductive things that can happen for that very reason.

A comparable problem happens in areas with fringe theories. When people who are earnestly attempting to stop POV pushers stoop to snarky edit summaries, blanket reversion, gross personal attacks, and similar misconduct, the POV pushing gets drowned out by the noise of the misconduct of the "defenders". Instead of actually upholding our content rules and defending the wiki from POV pushing, those people counterproductively enable the POV pushers. (A bit oversimply stated: If they instead stayed stubbornly focused on the content and seeking dispute resolution assistance, the POV pushing would stand highlighted as the misconduct present in the situation.)

This situation with BM and ASE is much the same. Any time ASE sticks his nose in the situation contrary to his restrictions, any valid point he might have is going to be drowned out by the blatant misconduct. Any further attempt to resolve the matter by other editors is going to be muddled by ASE's interference and presence in the matter, in a number of ways (such as by generously and foolishly handing BM a solid handhold for wikilawyering and distraction).

I firmly believe that doing the right thing in the wrong way is one of the most damaging things anyone can do, whether on-wiki or in real life. It taints the right thing with wrongfulness. Negative impressions are generally more powerful than positive impressions. (Anyone who works in business, sales, public relations, or any other relevant field can verify this.) Thus, people get hung up on the negative aspects associated with the right thing by such actions. The more that Allstarecho and his wikifriends harp on this issue, the more likely people are just going to ignore similar complaints about Bluemarine. It may not be right. It may not be wise. However, it is the pragmatic reality of human behavior and any consideration of the situation that does not recognize that practical truth is quite bluntly foolish and harmful to getting the right thing done.

All that said, I would truly and sincerely appreciate it if you would email more details about the matters you are describing. I promise to look at it in-depth and keep an eye on matters, acting on or reporting incidents as needed. If things are truly amiss, they need to be put in order without the muddling and pointed disruption. --Vassyana (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have either the time or the stomach to dig up old diffs of admins bullying gay teenagers or ANI threads in which abuse was ignored - they came damn close to making me leave before, and do make me feel physically sick to go over yet again. If it's to do with the current Bluemarine/ASE matter, these have already been brought to the attention of Arbcom when ASE requested they review his community sanction.

It may have escaped your notice but I have been pointing out that the sanction on ASE is deeply flawed from the moment it was imposed (and please don't insult me by claiming a clear consensus for the sanction, the discussion was far too short and the behaviour of some of those supporting the sanction, particularly the admin mentioned before was questionable).

You say "Any time ASE sticks his nose in the situation contrary to his restrictions, any valid point he might have is going to be drowned out by the blatant misconduct" - well, does not that make very clear the fatal flaw in the sanction on ASE? The sanction appears to me to have been designed to distract from Bluemarine's continuing self-promotion, and also to distract from any further attacks he shall make, by designating ASE as the problem. DuncanHill (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocks are not to be used as punishment. And what BLP violations are you referring to? I see none. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You say "those BLP violations", but you didn't tell me what they are. I don't see any. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Bluemarine

Look at this diff, tell me if that is OK, I certainly don't think it is. [4]. DuncanHill (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

And now I've been threatened with a block for complaining about homophobic comments. I hope you are pleased. DuncanHill (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Attention requested

Hi Vassyana. Could you please [take a look at this?] And this? I believe that 1) the proper procedure for merging the article has not been followed, 2) protests about that are being ignored and things are being forced through simply by revert power, 3) the discussion is not over, and the grounds in wikipedia policy for the discussion are not even clear or established. I started another sub-section calling for the grounds of the discussion to first be set, since some people were saying things one way (regarding notability being irrelevant) and others another way (that notability was still in dispute), and the actual reason, in policy, for the merge has been totally obscured, and OhConfucius just decided to merge the articles (which seems more like a deletion of all content on the one article, actually). If you see my call for a re-establishment of the grounds for discussion, you may understand. I also do not want this to drag on, and want it resolved one way or another swiftly, but at the moment there has been a miscarriage of how things are to be handled, and I think it's just wrong. --Asdfg12345 23:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

A message to the Arbitration Committee

This message is being sent to all non-recused arbitrators.

I have sent a message to the Arbitration Committee at the amendment page, that mentions what I feel that I need to say to ArbCom before the ban takes effect.

The message is here.

Thank you. Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested diffs

[5] [6] Mathsci (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

HELP

Vassyana, you are the only hope now! Please help. I can't fight all of them alone.--FalunDafaDisciple (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Tagged as sock of FalunGongDisciple. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Speed of light arbitration evidence -- my bad

You're right, what I wrote was more "commentary" than "evidence". I'm glad you moved it. Sorry about that. :-) --Steve (talk) 08:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As to what constitutes evidence

Vassyana, It's OK with me that you have moved that paragraph to the talk page. The important thing is that the arbitrators actually read it. I would however like to point out that the paragraph in question unequivocally constituted evidence. It drew attention to two AN/I threads where editors had attempted to get their opponents banned. The instigators of those AN/I threads where unequivocally indulging in disruptive behaviour because their actions created an atmosphere of fear for Brews ohare, and it encouraged a wolfpack attack on Brews ohare at the speed of light talk page. A rational debate in physics cannot be expected to be conducted until such malicious allegations are halted. David Tombe (talk) 12:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana, If the holders of a certain point of view are constantly operating under the threat that they will be banned for expressing that point of view, then it is hardly a level playing field. It couldn't be reasonably expected that I could present written evidence to illustrate that state of fear. The very existence of those AN/I threads should have been more than adequate for the purposes. I think that it goes without being said, that Brews and myself are the ones that have been constantly in the firing line for being sent off the pitch. And this kind of intimidation has continued right into the arbitration hearing itself in the form of the proposals that have been suggested at the workshop by Physchim62 and Totientdragooned. I was trying to make positive sugestions to resolve the impasse at speed of light in what I believed should have been a neutral courtroom atmosphere, and now I see that the attacks are continuing right inside the courtroom itself. Some kind of order needs to be restored urgently. The very first instance of contempt of court came with goodmorningworld's intervention to give a character reference for a prosecutor, and nothing was done about it. In real life, somebody who butt into a courtroom to behave like that would be taken down to the cells immediately. David Tombe (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit a new page notice

regarding your inquiry, i made my opinion known here. cheers! --emerson7 17:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Fatima UFO Hypothesis

A request for comment about the Fatima UFO Hypothesis has been made. Since you have edited this article you a welcome to comment at Talk:The Fatima UFO Hypothesis. Thank you Zacherystaylor (talk) 19:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

question

Re: [7]

Given that this alleged "evidence" possibly contains private personal information which was obtained by somebody in most likely an illegal manner, and given that I have never given you permission to review my private emails, if such are contained in this "evidence", whether real or doctored, I was wondering if you could clarify why you are in fact reviewing my personal emails without having contacted me first?radek (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If you have concerns, please raise them to the ArbCom mailing list. I will not discuss the content of the evidence or other private mailings on-wiki at this juncture. I have not had a complete opportunity to review all of the mails and on-wiki postings about this matter and broader concerns need to be handled with the entire Committee. Vassyana (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

socionics article

A user who edits socionics named Tcaudilllg is threatening to go to arbcom to get his sole way with the socionics article. He seems to be avoiding posting credible sources and has resorted to telling white lies, such as saying that leigitimate portions and methods in the theory are 'fringe', in order to remove information he does not want in the article and get only what he wants in the article. He has also resorted to a number of personal attacks when he does not get his way with the article. He has also been makeing insistance reverts to the article that are unnecessary and for reasons that are insufficent for wikipedias standards, such as using making 'personal attacks' against another editor as a reason to remove articles in the headline. He has also been removing information that is sufficently sourced according to wikipedias standards.

Here is his userpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tcaudilllg

I posted this here, because he has threatened to come here, so he can get his sole way with the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.209.167.21 (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Marc H. Rudov article

Thank you for the semi protect. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. If you need further administrative assistance, please do not hesitate to let me know. Vassyana (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)