User talk:Vassyana/Archive003

Request for Buddy
Hello. First of all, I want to congratulate you on becoming an admin. I'm sure you'll do a great job. Secondly, I'm here because I recently became interested in matters regarding the Wikipedia Mediation Cabal and I saw your name under the section explaining the Buddy system at Mediation_Cabal/Suggestions_for_mediators. I would like to know if you would like to make me your buddy, so I can have a better understanding of how to mediate cases. Feel free to deny my request at any time. Thank you. Yours truly, Eddie  01:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem at all. Do you have some questions currently? Did you want anything explained or any particular advice? I'll be glad to help however I can. Vassyana 15:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for accepting! I have several questions, but I want to read the page again before asking. Yours truly, Eddie  14:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) Vassyana 14:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello. Sorry for taking so long. I have a question regarding open cases. When there is an open case, do you create a subpage and try to mediate there, or does one mediate elsewhere? This is the only question I had, as I managed to answer my other questions by reading the project page. Thank you. Yours truly, Eddie  18:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Etcetc
First of all, thank you for your intervention concerning Etcetc's improper accusations made on Talk:Anarcho-capitalism. On my talk you said that I should always try to reach an agreeable solution with other editors. However, I'm not sure how I can reach such solution when it comes to Etcetc. He is constantly reverting my edits despite the fact that in all my edits I'm always trying to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and polices. For example, his reason for removing this sourced statement was that without it article is "less POV mongering", and here he based his deletion of the half of the article and sources on Infintiy0's one sentence explanation that the removed content is POV. What would you suggest that I do? -- Vision Thing -- 16:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would recommend trying out the dispute resolution options. If someone is being continually disruptive, you may wish to report their behaviour on WP:AN/I. If edit warring and disruption are a continual problem, you may wish to ask for page protection to make editors focus on discussion. Believe me, I can understand your frustration. However, it's important we conduct ourselves in a constructive and mature manner. If you have any questions or further concerns, feel free to bring them up. Cheers! Vassyana 16:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Prem Rawat
Vassyana. Just a note to make you aware that I've asked you for comment at []. No urgency from my perspective, but you may consider the location not appropriate for that discussion.

Thank you also for removal of the link for which I had been so long objecting. I will in due course amend my user page to reflect this, and archive the criticism of wikipedia.

--Nik Wright2 12:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If there is one to thank for the removal of that link, you ought to express that to User:Momento ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Vision Thing
Vision Thing is a problem editor and has been continuously reverting multiple people on multiple articles, on many occasions breaking consensus. This has been his major activity on wikipedia ever since his account was created. Please keep this in mind. There have been many past occasions where I and other editors have tried to discuss things with him but he never listens. -- infinity  0  17:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * He's been warned and it appears another admin has taken notice of the situation as well. Continued edit warring and incivility by all parties will be addressed, including Vision Thing. If you have any other questions or concerns, please bring them to my attention. If someone has continued to be problematic after the warnings received, please let me or the warning admin know. Thank you for making sure I was aware of the situation though, it is appreciated. Vassyana 17:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not about two equal parties edit warring. Vision Thing has been systematically attacking articles for over a year and never listens to input from other editors, yet somehow pretends he's not at fault. If you want evidence, look through his contributions yourself. The vast majority of his edits undo attempts made by multiple editors to address POV issues on articles, yet he reverts them the next time he comes across the page. When other editors object, he reports those other editors for "edit-warring".

How do you judge if someone is being "problematic"? I count at least 7 articles in VT's past 50 contributions where he has reverted different editors who have tried to address POV issues. This is WP:TE. How is this not problematic? He should have been blocked from editing long ago. -- infinity  0  17:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Pardon me for being a bit blunt, but you have been violating the ArbCom restrictions laid down upon you. Even after I realized I undid the block in error (your parole has yet to expire), I left it undone because you weren't around (it'd just be punitive) and I left the warning about the problem. That is to say, despite evidence to the contrary and egregious ArbCom sanction violations, I'm trying to assume good faith in you. Just the same, after the message I left for Vision Thing about reverting, he left a message (as seen above) for me. I provided advice based on his question. I've extended the same good faith, and more, to you as to him. I sincerely hope that neither of you abuse my good faith. Vassyana 17:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

A year is pretty good going. The person who got me into the mess in the first place was User:RJII, who later admitted to being a role account. So I hope you can forgive that. Believe whatever you want, I can't convince you of anything. I've told you all there is to know about Vision Thing, and many other editors will agree. Of course I have no good faith in the person. He shows all the signs of WP:TE, and I have been editing with him for over a year now. Good faith only a guide for a starting assumption, which in this case has been utterly destroyed by empirical evidence. -- infinity  0  17:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you were baited into the mess originally, you have been committed widespread violation of your parole. Again, you've receive a better share of good faith, in the face of absence to the contrary, than Vision Thing has. If either of you continue the disruptive behaviour, blocks will be used to prevent the continuing disruption. VT's edit warring has been noted by myself and another administrator. It is not as if the situation is being ignored. Please recognize there are eyes on the situation. Vassyana 18:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I understand. But did you at least take note of my statement that Vision Thing's edit-warring over the past few days is a long-term issue, not just a chance-happening? Because that's what I'm trying to get across. -- infinity  0  18:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. And, thanks for understanding. Vassyana 18:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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 00:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

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 00:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

BalanceRestored
No problem, the only reason I declined the request was because it didn't address the issue which led to the block at all. If the user was later willing to address that, no trouble with a second chance. Thanks for letting me know though. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

FOF - accidentally deleted text trying to archive
Dear Vassyana, is it possible to restore this text. I know exactly what I did wrong if that would help in the restoration. Thank you for your comment on my talk page. It was most encouraging. --Moon Rising 21:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

FOF - providing better coverage while maintaining neutrality
Dear Vassyana, You recommended better coverage of beliefs in your review. Someone responded with a great deal of information and another editor has tagged almost every individual sentence with a POV tag and deleted other text as irrelevant, or when a more complete explanation of a brief overview was added. Can you bring some light to this dilemma? Thank you. --Moon Rising 21:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Forget this, I just browsed some other religious articles. --Moon Rising 01:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Vassyana, we've been working with the draft you created for the last few days and things seem to have settled down. Can you take a look and let us know if we can go back to the regular page. I have personally screwed up everything I've tried to do with html except the smallest edits, so I won't be able to make that change. Hopefully another editor can handle it. Thanks again.--Moon Rising 00:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

User unblocked
Pastorwayne has been unblocked, agreeing to the conditions I offered and you supported. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to leave me a message. Cheers! Vassyana 16:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you and thank you : ) - jc37 00:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would welcome your comments concerning the previous unblock at his talk page. - jc37 15:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Asking for help
You Said: Don't be shy about asking for help or advice if you feel unsure about something. Most of us are a friendly and helpful lot. :)
 * Yes, you all are surely very friendly. I like the way wikipedia is organized. I will surely ask help, but also try making personal efforts to understand the policies here. BalanceRestored 09:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Awesome. :o) If you come across something you'd like advice on, feel free to ask. Vassyana 09:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Belen Jesuit
I had done what you requested previously, I had written to him and give the information with the page number "Alonso R. del Portillo is a graduate of the Class of 1978 Please see Page 254 of the International Jesuit Alumni Diectory of 1994, and Page 74 of 2004 edition. As for Bishop Orue of Pinar de Rio look in the Catholic web sites under his name and they state that he also graduated from Belen (http://www.fiu.edu/~mirandas/obispos/bio-o.htm#Orue).Callelinea 18:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC) " and he did not wish to accept that as fact.Callelinea 12:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me!! I warned someone about putting that someone is a porn actor. No where in his reference does it state that the porn actor is a graduate of Christopher Columbus High School. I put the warning and I explained my reason for putting it in.  If he can verify that the porn actor that he claims is Abram Rodriguez that graduated from CCHS I have no problem with that.  But seeing that their is no article on Wikipedia on this actor Abram Rodriguez, that some verifiable article states that the porn actor is the same as the graduate from CCHS I see no reason to put more then the person in question is an actor as it was originally placed in the article.  As to the Roman Catholic Bishop Orue of Pinar del Rio being a graduate of Belen Jesuit, I personally verified it with the Belen Jesuit Alumni Office, run by Juan M. Dorta-Duque, SJ, that yes the Bishop is a graduate of Belen.  As to Alonso R. del Portillo being a graduate of the class of 1978 (The International Jesuit Alumni Directory Belen (Bernard C. Harris Publishing Company Inc, 2004) MCNH-W54-4-4.OVA, page 74,The International Jesuit Alumni Directory Belen (Forum Press Inc., 1994), page 254, Belen Jesuit Prep Echoes Vol. XVI, 1978, Taylor Publishing Company, page 208, Belen Jesuit Prep Echoes Vol. XV, 1977, page 174).  Additionally, if you would review his edits to articles, you will see that he is in the habit of putting things in the articles that have been corrected by both editors and administrators. Callelinea 23:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I sounded combative. But their are three things being discussed here, Abram Rodriguez who is alive and has no article on Wikipedia but that someone originally placed under notable alumni in the article Christopher Columbus High School as an actor, but this "editor/vandal" wants to put as a porn actor.  Other issue is Bishop Braulio Orue-Vivanco who is dead and that a historian made a web site on Cuban Catholic Church ( plus I verified with the Alumni Office).  Third issue is Alonso R. del Portillo also living that has the verifiable proof that he also is a graduate of Belen Jesuit. 66.184.162.219/65.13.58.108 edits are not real edits but vandalism I have given him the information previously and yet he continues to continually make the same edits, not constructive edits, I am not the only one that has brought his editing to question, but since i have those two schools and him on my watch list, i catch him now before any of the others do. But I will appreciate any help you can provide. I sent you the scaned pages on Alonso R. del Portillo from the Belen Alumni Directories.  ThanksCallelinea 00:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your assistance. Callelinea 00:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Spoilers
Thank you for your comments. I do not find the reasons you gave compelling, however, for the following reasons (which I concede may not be obvious):

"By the time you see a spoiler warning, the page is already loaded and the information in front of you."
 * That a page is visible does not necessarily mean that it has been read. By the time I had finished reading point (1) of your response, I had still not read even a pixel of point (2)&mdash;and they weren't even separated by a line break.  Regardless, anyone consciously seeking to avoid spoilers will be more careful than you seem to let on.  What you are arguing for is a sort of slippery slope&mdash;and this is a logical fallacy.

"Every Wikipedia page already has a disclaimer."
 * I would remind you that (a) the disclaimer is at the bottom of the page, (b) the general disclaimer says nothing about spoilers and (c) the content disclaimer, which does mention spoilers, says that there will be spoiler warnings on pages. I suppose (a) may be seen as irrelevant, though I do not think it is.  Regardless, (b) and (c) remain and are relevant, particularly (c).  We could alter the content disclaimer and remove item (c), but not until consensus is reached over removing spoiler warnings.  Prior to that, argument (2) either begs the question (and is thus fallacious) or is idle.

"Finally, we should not forget that Wikipedia is not censored."
 * We should also not forget, however, that spoiler warnings do not remove any information (see Censorship). I don't believe people are saying "don't mention crazy twist x in the article on y" (and if they are, they are equally misguided).  Rather they are saying, "let people know when there are particularly significant spoilers in a section."  Besides Censorship, however, Wikipedia is not censored also refers the reader to No disclaimers in articles, which again has an explicit exception for spoiler tags&mdash;even after the article was altered by anti-spoiler tag campaigners to better suit their views.  So again, WP:NOT can not be used as an argument against spoiler warnings until after spoiler warnings are already decided to violate it, thus making this another argument that is either circular or idle. Postmodern Beatnik 15:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Meditation
I saw that you are nominated to get on the meditation committee. I put a word in for you where it says "outside comments". I think you will do well for the committee, and Wikipedia.

Let me know how it goes! =)

Politics rule 11:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not know that there is a committee for meditation ... :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we all meditate on how nice it might be if everyone worked together in love and harmony. They don't, so we're busy. Vassyana, not sure if you noticed there are questions for you here - thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your trust
Hi, Vassyana. I had decided not to go to the talk pages of all the people who supported me and leave boilerplate thank you messages, as I know it annoys some people, so I thought that in some cases I'd wait until I was leaving a message for the person anyway. However, I want to make an exception for you, as you nominated me, and to say that I very much appreciate the trust that you've placed in me. I promise not to do anything to violate that trust, and I look forward to working with you in the future. I've moved away from Christianity a bit recently (I mean on Wikipedia, not in real life!) but I did appreciate your courtesy and calmness there when the atmosphere got a bit unpleasant. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

User:BalanceRestored
Hello, I have been doing my best to respond in a neutral manner to this user after you lifted the block, but I honestly do not know how to reply to dialog such as this:. Would you please take a close look at the user page and contributions for this user? The problem I see is that there is an inability to distinguish religious beliefs from WP:RS. Do you agree that this is a problem, and if so, can you help the user see it? I have tried to address the content issues by finding strong WP:RS but even when I support the user, the response seems to be based on purely religious thinking. Buddhipriya 06:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
For your invitation for help, sorry for the late response I've been quite busy and that looks to continue. I'd very much like to contribute to Med Cab, and Daniels helped me get a good idea of what happens. So, can I just join a case, that is work on a case in conjunction with someone until I can go it alone? Cheers, Dfrg.msc 06:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You could ask on WT:MEDCAB if someone would bring you in on an existing case if you wanted. Another option would be to adopt a new case and have someone keep an eye on the case and offer advice. If you find a case that you're willing to try, I'd be happy to keep watch on it, offer advice and answer questions. Cheers! Vassyana 23:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Attack site?
Helo Vassyana, you removed this. Care to explain why did you refer to that site as an "attack site"? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not that I am opposed to its removal (on the basis that self-published sources cannot be used to assert opinions about third parties), just stating my disagreement on calling that site an "attack site". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It includes the names of current and/or former Wikipedia contributors and uses strong language in launching accusations of a "hate group". It makes false claims (for example claiming Brauns signed legal documents regarding the websites, but instead providing a WHOIS and a couple of copied emails). It broadly associates the anti-Rawat web presence with the worst of the lot, making unsupported accusations of such things as "[i]nciting people via the Internet to drug and kidnap members of Maharaji's family". Since the net effect is to leave a reader with the implication that current and former editors of Wikipedia are violent felons without proof, in my mind it qualifies as an attack site. Even if not, it is a link to defamatory material. I hope that helps explain. Cheers! Vassyana 18:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * These accusations are not against editors of Wikipedia, but about one individual that happen to have edited Wikipedia, and with no reference to Wikipedia at all. In any case, the text in the article did not name anyone. I may agree with the link removal in the context of WP:SELFPUB, but strongly disagree with your labeling that site an attack site as it does not relate to Wikipedia at all. I would appreciate if you reconsider your statement based on my argument. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that it does not specifically "out" anyone, in relation to Wikipedia. I will concede it is not an attack site in the limited criteria laid out at the failed "attack sites" proposal. I would also agree that the hosting site cannot be broadly attributed as an attack site. However, there is little question that the material is misleading in sections and is very likely defamation. "Attack site" may be considered an error in terminology. Regardless, such a link is not acceptable, just as linking to sites with similarly ill-founded and blatantly misleading claims about Rawat & premies are unacceptable. Vassyana 18:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. But I still disagree on the basis of asymmetry. Nevertheless, if removing that link dissipates further discussions about these issues, I am in favor of the removal. But only because of that.  ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

FOF - Vandalism and "report card"
Dear Vassyana, Once again, thanks for all your help. We have a vandal - so far he's attacked twice, once logged in and once not. How often do we need to be vandalized before it's time to semi-protect the page? Would you do that for us? The activity has settled down considerably and while the article is not yet stable, are we approaching a higher rating than "start". The older editors have seemed to calmed down and reached some consensus, and one very active and somewhat controversial editor seems to have disappeared from WP (blanked his user page in fact). Regarding your earlier comment on primary source material: the FOF website is apparently the main source for their beliefs. Hope you're having fun with your new admin responsibilities. --Moon Rising 23:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Generally, if the page is only vandalized a few times, then semi-protection is not needed. Reverting the changes and warning the vandal is all that is necessary. If they are a persistent vandal, please report them at WP:AIV. Cheers! Vassyana 04:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I put a vandalism tag on the use page. However, much of the vandalism is by a user that does not log on. I think it's the same vandal (same or very similar changes). I put a tag on that page, but I'm not sure if it will work.  The IP address is consistent. --Moon Rising 06:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Vassyana, I hope you don't think I'm a whiner, but could you take a look at what Artnscience did to the FoF page? He deleted 1/2 to 1/3 of each section in beliefs plus other changes (12 separate edits) all which will be tedious to fix. I've placed a vandal tag on his talk page. I don't understand why everyone keeps editing the article instead of the draft which you put so much time into. Is it time to protect the page yet?--Moon Rising 04:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Active user verification
Hello,. Due to the high number of inactive users at WP:WPNN, we are asking that you verify that you are still an active contributor of the project. To do so, please add an asterisk (*) after your name on WP:WPNN. Users without one by the next issue in 2 weeks will be removed off the list. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. Diez2 23:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Deaf ears
Thanks for trying to help inject some calmness into the situation. Unfortunately his immediate deletion of your helpful message suggests that he does not want to play well with others. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Balance Restored


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. I tried to take the writings as soft as I can, Stuck to the guidelines you have asked me to. I gave as much as detail as possible to my edits. I never cared doing all these before. I did make some mistakes but then, appologized for the same immeadiately and took the discussions more positively. Thanks to all the wikipedians for guiding me till here. BalanceRestored 09:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You asked, what was I currently working on. I am trying to correct few articles here in Wikipedia that's wrongly interpreted. I succeeded editing few unsourced material. There where some articles that was actually from Gita (Gita = Bible for us Hindus) narrated by Lord Krishna (Some one as big Jesus to you, I suppose). A similar reference was given by another author from the new era someone in the 19th century violated something that Gita said and it was some how referred to me. So I referred a text from Gita to my fellow editor and asked how what was referred could be true?.
 * I unknowingly copy pasted a text from a possibly copyrighted material. I immediately realized my mistake and this time did not continue arguing with my fellow editors, instead started taking the deletion wisely and waited to understand the possible problems I made. Soon, the article was presented appropriatelyBalanceRestored 10:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Tajik
Hi, this is Tajik. I had asked for unblock, but my request was refused. Instead, I was asked to email certain admins and ask for their conditions. Since then, I wrote mails to 5 different admins, asking an unblock and asking for conditions so I can defend myself in an arbcom. But all 5 admins are ignoring my mails. Admin User:Future Perfect at Sunrise has done some investigation, and he found out that the two of the users suspected of being my sockpuppets, namely User:German-Orientalist and User:Tajik-Professor, have totally unrelated IPs. He also confirmed that the edits of Tajik_professor contradict my edits in all aspects and that his edits rather reflect those of User:NisarKand, an known vandal with Islamist and terrorist views who was banned for vandalizing articles and my user page. He also agrees that my IP comes from Hamburg while that of German-Orientalist comes from Dortmund, located 500km (300 miles) southwest of Hamburg. While my and German-Orientalist's edits are very similar, we are different people. He is a professional orientalist living in West German, while I live and study in Hamburg. German-Orientalist was banned, only because CheckUser suggested that it is likely that he is me ... but likely is not the same as certainly! On the other hand, his IP is totally unrelated to that of Tajik-Professor, although both are claimed to be my sock-puppets. I have addressed all of this information to 5 different admins (as you had suggested), but they are all ignoring my mails. I even agreed not to edit anything else except arbcom page, but they still refuse. They do not want to give me a chance to defend myself. So, once again, I am asking you for help. It would be helpful if you could contact Future Perfect at Sunrise, or write a short comment in here. Thank you. BTW: User:Grandmaster is on a witch-hunting trip. He accuses everyone of being sockpuppets of others, while he himself is into ethnic strifes. See this comment by an un-involved user. He is already on a revert paroll, enforced by the community because of his disruptive and ethnically motivated behaviour in various articles. He is not allowed to have one revert per week per page. It's a myth to me why he was not banned like so many others in that special arbcom. 82.83.155.124 12:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC
 * PS: please protect my talk-page against IP vandals. Thank you.


 * Sorry, but what Tajik is saying about my investigations is not entirely accurate. Please see my comments on Talk:Safavid dynasty. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request
User:81.104.175.145 requested an unblock, which I declined as the reason for the block is apparent in the contributions. However, I would politely ask that in the future that you do not block someone for incidents or disputes in which you have been involved. This is explicitly against our blocking policy and helps ensure that the process is fair. Cheers! Vassyana 02:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Vassyana!
 * Thanks for your message; I do appreciate your concerns. For the record, I blocked 81 because I saw an alarming amount of incivility, personal attacks, and threats directed at other users, and the situation seemed to be escalating, with more hostility, etc, as time went along. I asked 81 nicely to be WP:CIVIL, and he responded with a rather nasty note on my talk page. If he won't listen to admins, he's not going to listen to anyone.


 * However, if 81 can be civil and refrain from making personal attacks, there's no reason for him to remain blocked any longer. I do take your concerns seriously, and I thank you for your polite note. Best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester  02:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for understanding. Your block was correct and he hasn't shown any indication he will refrain. So, I declined the request for unblock. Vassyana 02:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, thank you for looking into the situation. 81 is clearly a good contributor, judging by his contribution list; he just has trouble staying civil and refrain from making attacks. But the diff I posted on his talk page concerned me, and there are plenty of others in his contrbution list; as I say, I have no problem with a shorter block duration if he can be civil. Thanks again for your nice, non-inflammatory note. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester  02:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

BLP
Vassyana, I'm concerned that you protected BLP on a version that you appear to favor given your recent (June 10) talk-page comments (there's no such thing as semi-notable; and that if admins undeleting a BLP can be sanctioned, surely admins deleting one should be sanctioned too). Admins shouldn't protect pages when they're involved in a content dispute, which includes expressing views on the issue on talk. I'd appreciate it if you'd consider unprotecting. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually favour something similar to the version previous to the most recent edit before protection. It obviously best represents consensus and ArbCom clarifications. Regarding "semi-notability" please see the essay I wrote about BLP, as I believe you may misunderstand my position. Regarding the sanctions, I noted  for a reason. People expect such things to be a two-way street, parity of principle and all that. So, I raised it as a counterpoint for discussion. The current dispute revolves around implementing an ArbCom clarification, which is a matter I have not been involved in nor commented on, until now. I truly believe you are deeply mistaken about which version I believe is appropriate. I feel that protecting the page, even in the "wrong version", was appropriate. They were edit warring on a policy page. If you still feel my protection was inappropriate, please let me know and if you could provide more detail (or another explanation) why, because I do not feel I've overstepped any bounds nor protected a version I think is correct. Vassyana 09:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you've lifted it now. Thank you. I read your BLP essay, and it's very good. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's only courteous to acknowledge that others feel there's a potential conflict. If you have any questions or observations about the position I lay out in the essay, I'd welcome questions and feedback. Cheers! Vassyana 02:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Myoko
Hello Vassyana You've put a clean-up tag on this page Japanese cruiser Myoko : can you say why? there's nothing on the discussion page to say what's wrong with it. Xyl 54 14:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

mediation
I have tried to mediate the Battle of Konotop, alas, to no avail. The person who requested mediation doesn't want to continue it. Altough I believed we should have been able to get the problem fixed, and a consensus version worked out, one of the editors who was key to the conflict wants to stop mediation, as he sees no point in continuing mediation. Do you think it would be wise to put some pressure on it, and see if I can get the mediation started again, or better leave it as it is, and just close it unsuccesfully? Martijn Hoekstra 00:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be a bad thing to politely approach the "resigning" party and request they give informal mediation a further try. If his concern is that the issues are becoming too sprawling, you may wish to offer a series of questions to try and limit or focus the discussion. I often find a series of questions is very helpful is framing disputes. Usually I ask about a few questions about how relevant policies fit into place and a few other questions about the dispute. Solovyov is a scholar who wrote some time ago. That being so, another suggestion would be to see if Solovyov's advocate might be able to find current reliable sources repeating or supporting the information. If he could, see if RussianName would be more willing to accept the information considering it would then be verified using multiple reliable sources. If you cannot get them back into mediation with polite encouragement, close the case. In that instance, I would recommend urging the participants to see another dispute resolution option. Since there is two disputants, getting a third opinion could be helpful to them. With the permission of the parties (for courtesy), you could also politely point out the dispute and ask for additional eyes on the article in the appropriate WikiProject, such as the military history project. If you have any further questions or concerns, please ask. Cheers! Vassyana 03:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

FOF Draft
Dear Vassyana, I seem to be the only one editing your new draft. The FOF just updated their website and there are many changes. OK with you if I copy my edits to the article and then you can delete/inactivate the draft? If you want us to use the draft, then please say something on the talk page. FYI - one editor, Aeuio, has said that he will not be editing much as the FOF no longer refers to itself as a true fourth way school. From the lack of activity lately, we may not need the draft. Would you take a look, please. Best regards, --Moon Rising 19:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. Take your time and let me know when you're set, so I don't accidentally delete an active workspace or a reference you might need. Time to take a look at their new site. :) Vassyana 20:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Vassyana, I think it's time to take down the draft. I've extracted all I can from it, and no one else has used it in weeks. The article is stable now. I'd like your opinion, when you have time, and the key areas that need work. Personally, I think it needs to be shortened; I took a little bit out of each section of their new web site and there are some redundancies.  It's easier to cut and paste than to edit it.  I tried to add a lot of "the Fof believes... sort of phrasing throughout to try to eliminate POV, and made sure to leave your NPOV edits to the intro -- that was not easy :). So, what do you suggest?  Also, in your draft you used a type of reference that I could  not get to work - it had a cite and date for weblinks. Is there an easy way to do this (remember that I'm a html challenged)? Why is that type of ref important? Thanks for your patience with us. Warm regards, --Moon Rising 20:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for help and/or blocking of Shashwat Pandey
Dear Vassyana,

I am a relative newcomer to Wiki and was working in earnest on the Sahaj Marg page. I spent a few weeks getting oriented, hearing people's opinions, and then after some encouragement by others, finally took the plunge and edited the Sahaj Marg page this morning. It was full of redundancies, poorly organized, and contains a hostile tone.

I changed some text (what we had discussed about sectes) and re-ordered much of the piece, moving most of the contested stuff to the "teachings" section which I left alone, because I felt we had to discuss this on the talk board.

Sfacets accidentally reverted it but then changed it back to my version, saying he was glad to see a major edit done on this piece and that it needed it.

Then, Shashwat Pandey started in and didn't even read the edits or discuss them (and, I should note I posted what editorial changes I made on the talk board so all would be involved) before he reverted them. Again, being new to Wiki, I thought it was a computer problem at first and kept trying to re-save the work I did, but everytime I did Shashwat would revert it again.

Even Sfacets reverted it to my edited version of this morning and within seconds, Shashwat again reverted it to his works. He reverted it NINE times just TODAY alone.

Further, when I tried to work with him on the first paragraph alone, incorporating what he wanted (something that was grammatically incorrect but included the words "claiming" and spiritual training) along with mine, he immediately reverted it Again back to his original version.

I investigated Wiki policy about vandalism and per what was written, tried to post a warning on his page (the vandalism guidelines say that we should not contact administrators until three warnings are given, is this correct? if not, my mistake). Then, I tried filing a report on the three-R page, but I have no idea if it worked (and upon reading this, I myself was guilty of this today, because I thought I was re-saving the edits).

I'm not sure what to do?

It seems that Shashwat thinks he is the only one allowed to edit the page and if he doesn't agree then he reverts it back to what he wants. I think the only way to make progress is to block him.

Please advise.

Renee  --Renee 14:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Vassyana,


 * I just discovered another problem with Shashwat Pandey. Earlier this morning (before working on the Sahaj Marg page mentioned above), I had edited a paragraph on the Shri Ram Chandra Mission page about the French secte issue.  I had secured agreement with others that the word secte should be used (because that's what the report said) not cult, and I repeatedly posted a model of what the TM site did as a potential model.  So, after two weeks I finally took the plunge and edited the site.


 * For the first time today I went back to see if Don (one of the editors) had any comments on my edit and I was shocked to see that Shashwat had immediately reverted that small edit too! It seems that he's not allowing anyone to edit but himself, AND, he refuses to compromise or collaborate with others.  He wants everyone to wait until he decides if it's right but then he has such a hostile point of view that he even argued that Sahaj Marg was not a meditation system (someone else called him on that immediately).


 * Please help.


 * Renee   --Renee 19:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am an active mediator in a case the user is involved in and cannot impose myself due to concerns of neutrality. However, I would suggest dropping a polite message on their talk page about the issue and express your concerns in a civil and kind manner. If further assistance is required, ask for an outside opinion to help build WP:CONSENSUS. If user behaviour is problematic and polite discussion does not help, you can report the user so admins can review the situation and deal with it appropriately. If you have any further questions or concerns, please always feel free to leave me a message. Vassyana 19:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Vassyana,

Thanks for your reply. I have tried begging, giving polite messages, and also tried the wiki policies of warning of vandalism (for the 9 reversions). No matter what it seems nothing can be done. How do I report to an administrator? I'm sorry to be so dense but exactly how do I use the code you gave above to contact the administrator (I'm new to this Wiki stuff).

Thanks, Renee      --Renee 19:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Understood. Please give time for the 3RR complain to be reviewed. Otherwise, if you need to report problematic users for admins to look over you should do that at WP:AN/I. There's a link you can click to start a new report. (Generally, people will want to see evidence in the form of "diffs".) Keep in mind, if something is just a content dispute, instead of problematic behaviour, you should try seeking assistance in settling the dispute. Beyond that, if you have questions about how to handle something or do something, please feel free to ask. You can place helpme on your user talk page with your question below it, or always feel free to leave me a message. You are also welcome to send me an e-mail ("E-mail this user" link on the left), if you feel the need. Cheers! Vassyana 19:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:Kelpin
Hi Vassyana, if you feel that Kelpin isn't a sockpuppet I won't object to you unblocking him. However, I still believe he is one, because in his first couple of contribs he started arguing with User:Rambutan and requested to have MrClaxson unblocked --these aren't typical actions of a newcomer. The IPs contribution history doesn't change my mind either. But if you disagree with my interpretation of the evidence I have no problem with you unblocking him. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks, I think!
You got me back into unblocked status for a minute and I actually did an edit but it quickly got re-blocked, presumably because of re-vandalization by some vandal using the satellite. I now entered via dialup (much slower) and can edit again. Love26 21:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Committee nomination
It is my pleasure to announce that after great consideration, you have been accepted as a member of the Mediation Committee. I encourage you to place the Mediation Committee page and Requests for Mediation on your watchlist, as well as the open tasks page, which will be updated as new cases are accepted. You may also (and are encouraged to) join the Committee's internal mailing list (please email me directly so I can confirm your email before subscribing it). If you have any questions about how the Committee functions, please feel free to ask me or email the mailing list. Congratulations on becoming a member!
 * On behalf of the Mediation Committee,  Daniel  22:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Congrats. Martinp23 has sorted access to #wikipedia-mediation for you. You should be able to get it next time you're on IRC. WjBscribe 23:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Question
This is with reference to Sahaj Marg madiation process, there are few questions related to wiki pocily.

1. Is it possible to get your help on entire article from top to bottom ? both parties present their POV and you decide what is appropriate.. it may be somewhat time consuming but may help a lot in achieveing long term stability of contents.

2. Can we involve more parties in the mediation process to get their POV as well and agree to decision of mediator ? (I am talking about Renee)

3. How long term stability of a page is achieved on a wiki page for highly controvertial topic's ? how is stability achieved for pages which are highly controvertial and different parties have absolute opposite POV and does not seem to agree.--Shashwat pandey 07:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Vassyana,


 * Please note that administrator Jossi has suggested that a stub be placed in place of the Sahaj Marg page, and that the Shri Ram Chandra Mission page be merged into it (or she suggested deletion as well).  She checked the sources and found them to be invalid (see the Sahaj Marg talk page), so I don't think it would be possible for Shashwat's contributions to appear on the page anyways.  (The "quoted" text is selectively chosen to promote a certain POV.  Shashwat's stated purpose on his user page, up until today when he was asked to change it by an administrator [see history and select June 22, 2007, for example] was to attack and disparage Sahaj Marg and SRCM.)


 * We are trying to get a short, simple, and neutral article out there that fits the intent and spirit of Wikipedia. Mr. Shashwat already has a blog where he can post his chosen quotations and make the case he wants against Sahaj Marg, but Wiki is not the place for this.
 * Thank you for your work on this. Renee    --Renee 09:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Does Renee approach to you and her communication with various other admin's qualify for ? i do not wish her to be banned as her POV is against me, and that is very much needed to get the article in a NPOV state, but getting personal and trying to influence the mediator where i am involved qualifies as geniune behaviour ? How do we go about it ? --Shashwat pandey 11:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA
I feel renee has seriously violated WP:NPA by trying to connect me with a blog on internet, this in my view is a clear case of attempt to expose a person's identity, and was done with same intention, as there is/was no referene to any blog on my user page ever.

Even if i am not the owner of that blog, people may take this as truth and my personal safety is direct under threat!! This act, of connecting me with a blog, which is so much against one group, may put me in serious threat for personal safety. I feel renee is suitable to be banned for a longer duration of time, according to stated policy at WP:NPA

''Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery''

Expect your kind co-operation. --Shashwat pandey 19:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)