User talk:Vassyana/Archive015

Note
Please remember to abide by our policy to assume good faith. Obama is mentioned once 3/4 of the way into a very long ACORN article. None of my edits had anything to with him. I have made every effort to abide by my editing restriciton no matter how unjust and misguided. According to the contortions of logic and stretching of boundaries just about any subject can be said to be Obama related. What about environmental issues and articles? Health care? If there was an issue over my editing that article all Sandstein or any other admin had to do was to ask me not to edit it pending further discussion. It's not complicated. We don't need people running around acting like assholes, shooting first and asking questions later. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In regard to your comment that "it's a moot point as there is no continuing disagreement or dispute over the block length," that's actually very inaccurate. Mistakes in block logs are not oversighted and, as I can attest, the logs are used whether they are accurate or not to flog editors and in ad hominem attacks during content disputes. If we aren't going to oversight errors, then bad blocks are a VERY serious issue and concern.
 * Stigmatizing editors as disruptive and building up block logs with mistakes is a VERY real problem. I have suggested allowing clear errors to be oversighted, but until they are, bad blocks by admins that add to block logs should be taken VERY VERY seriously. It is not a moot point at all. It's a serious problem and the grotesque block length is an error that should never have happened in the first place. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. I have read them and will hold them in mind. Vassyana (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom
I've replied to your statement at ArbCom that there are dispute resolution possibilities. So far, there are no aspects of Dispute Resolution which have the ability to desysop admin who are abusing their authority as admin, so there is no possibility for such. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way - noticeboards were used. RfCs were used. Strawpolls were used. The edit warring and the harassment continued. The block by Gwen Gale that was quickly overturned and just about unanimously overturned should be evidence that this has been a long problem. Please tell me where dispute resolution can help where people were reported for constant edit warring and the rest even though three RfC/Strawpolls determined that there was no consensus for it. The fact that they edit warred against an Arbitrator and bullied him makes it 100% certain that they believe that they are above all of our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit warring is continued by an admin even though there have been three consensus building attempts (2 straw polls, one RfC) which made it clear that a redirect was not accepted by the community. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Vassyana, I will immediately withdraw the Rfar if you can show me where Dispute resolution can appropriately deal with all of these interconnected problems - abusive block and harassment, threats of block and harassment, constant attacks on talk pages, multiple pages being disrupted, constant edit stalking, edit warring, and the rest. In your answer, I request you demonstrate where one such issue has been effectively dealt with before. I would direct you to your vote during the Eastern European Mailing List request which is on the same exact type of problem. A blank support to open. We have talked before, and I have found you reasonable. However, it seems like you are putting forth a clear double standard or making claims that have not been verified by history or practice. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will provide a direct reponse a bit later. I have a few things I need to focus on first, but I wanted to make sure that you knew that I will be replying substantively to your message. Thank you for being patient. Vassyana (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My email and skype are always available if you want to talk or if you require additional evidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to give you a direct basis for more information, here is my reply to the individual statements you have made - "Step one of dispute resolution is cordial discussion." Tried that. Tried that many, many times since before Moreschi's first abusive block. "such as by asking for a volunteer from MedCab." I've asked many people to intervene and many people attempted to - Kim Bruning and DGG for example. Hell, I even turned to Geogre who was using a sock puppet to harass me and he even told them that their ideas on a subject were improper. I turned to RfC (one was used at Persian Empire before the current one), WikiProjects, noticeboards, and the rest. These were jumped on by the same group of people and turned into battlegrounds. "requesting comment about user conduct can help provide feedback from the broader community" - large groups of people can easily game RfC. Look at Bishonen's in which her third RfC shows many people coming to her defense even though she was complicit in the abusive sock puppeting by Geogre in order to harass me, harassment that she was part of.
 * By the way, if my comments were incivil, personal attacks, etc, that is not part of polite conversation, why do you think I went unblocked so long? It is obvious from Gwen Gale's block that they would block at the slightest thing they could try and make up exists (which was over turned as completely inappropriate). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Note
Hi Vassyana. Just wanted to remind you to fix the relevant tally when you make a vote on Arbitration/Requests/Case, as you missed it in a couple recently. Juliancolton and I seem to have fixed them, but if they're incorrect, please revert/modify accordingly. :) Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I always encourage people to correct my typos, oversights, and other mistakes. I certainly make enough such errors! Thank you for doing so. I do earnestly appreciate it. Vassyana (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested in this discussion
User_talk:Matthewedwards--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC) I mention this because of your earlier comments at: User_talk:Matthewedwards/Archives/2009/04--Doug.(talk • contribs) 19:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Tombe
My view of Tombe's behavior is no secret. And Tombe received more warnings than anyone should need. Nevertheless, I don't think it is fair to prevent Tombe from responding to what others (including myself) are saying about him, given the potential consequences of the arbitration decision to him. I propose an alternative: Let Tombe submit whatever he has to say to a qualified "referee". The referee would accept, reject, or, if it can be done without unreasonable effort, refactor, Tombe's proposed post. The referee would post whatever the referee accepts or refactors in the appropriate section of the appropriate arbitration page. That would allow Tombe to participate in, but not to continue disrupting, the arbitration. Finell (Talk) 17:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)  (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.) 


 * Response to Finell: A better alternative is to make sure any decision is postponed for at least 48 Hrs after Tombe's block expires to allow him to respond. That way he can speak without an interpreter. Brews ohare (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Brews assumes that any referee selected would not fairly present Tombe's non-disruptive contributions. Tombe would be better off with a referee, so he doesn't dig himself in any deeper than he already has. Why did I even bother bringing this up? Finell (Talk) 19:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not the role of Wikipedia users or administrators to be censors or gatekeepers making sure someone's posts are appropriate. If David posts something inappropriate, he is aware of what the consequences will be - another block and a ban from further participation in the case. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 20:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Attacks on other WP pages
Physchim62 has undertaken to interrupt discussion of a proposal concerning use of the one-line Edit Summary here. This interruption is a personal attack that has nothing to do with the RfC, and interferes with a normal WP process. It seems pretty clear to me that dragging the Case/Speed of light into a perfectly simple RfC is not relevant to the separate issue of how to use a one-line Edit Summary, and the phrasing "pander to the aggressive spinners of pseudoscience" is inflammatory. I believe that (i) Physchim62 should be harshly reminded to keep his gibes to himself, and (ii) this comment of his should be reverted. Brews ohare (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears that Littleolive oil & User:Rd232 agree with me on the nature of this contribution. Brews ohare (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin Jehochman has interrupted the RfC on WP:Civil to support Physchim62 in an unwarranted irrelevant attack. His edit should be reverted with admonition. His action underlines a lack of objectivity on the part of Jehochman and he should recuse himself from this Case/Speed of light. This example is not the first time Jehochman has intruded to support Physchim62, as he also intervened at Physchim62's request to ban D Tombe.

These actions are not acceptable in a neutral hearing. Brews ohare (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman's flippant remark concerning unwarranted inflammatory attacks made on Talk pages unrelated to this case is further indication that he does not have sufficient objectivity to handle Case/Speed of light, and most probably should not be an Admin at all. Brews ohare (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman also has presumed to advertise the conclusions of Case/Speed of light on WP:Civil before adjudication has occurred. Besides being a premature and gratuitous statement in that context, it indicates he has prejudged the outcome of this case. Prejudgment also is indicated by his remarks to me here. Brews ohare (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns and will keep them in mind in resolving the speed of light case. However, outside of arbitration pages, I will not intervene as an administrator in this situation except in exceptional cirucmstances of extreme disruption or repeated problems after due warning. I will offer you the same advice that I have offered others, which is to not attempt altering policy in the midst of an ongoing dispute if at all possible. I appreciate your good intentions there, but the action is bound to be viewed by some editors as an attempt to get an upper hand in a dispute. It would be better to try and raise those concerns about civility after the dust has settled and you have nothing to gain in a current dispute from it. Back to the substance of your complaints, if you feel the comments were inappropriate and uncivil, soliciting some outside input from WP:WQA would probably be your best bet. However, before taking that step, I would recommend leaving a polite message on the editors' user talk pages expressing succinctly why you found their message offensive and cordially asking that they refactor or rephrase their comments. Vassyana (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You should be aware that Brews also posted the same complaints about Physchim62 and Jehochman on the talk pages of Cool Hand Luke and Hersfeld. In his proposed findings of fact at Workshop, under the heading "Editor Jehochman has misbehaved", Brews also asks for findings in the arbitration that Jehochman and Physchim62 (under the same heading) were uncivil for "interrupt[ing]" the RfC. As the RfC itself shows, Physchim62 and Jehochman commented in opposition to Brews' proposal, but did not interrupt the RfC.


 * Physchim62 and Jehochman (and I) justifiably viewed Brews's RfC as seeking an alternate forum for some of the issues in the arbitration, and commented accordingly. In Brews's proposals on the Workshop page, he proposes both a policy and a remedy that are the same in substance as his proposal at the RfC. The RfC closed with no votes in support other than Brews' (Brews closed it himself), and the discussion has been archived (I archived it because Brews neglected to do so). The standard instructions for closed, archived discussions such as this RfC is that editors should not modify the contents (see Archive bottom). Therefore, I do not believe that it would be appropriate for RfC participants to refactor or rephrase their comments. If the comments were blatantly uncivil or constituted personal attacks, these behavioral policies would probably override the standard practice of not modifying closed discussions. However, Physchim62's and Jehochman's comments do not come close to violating these policies. Finell (Talk) 12:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Finell's notion of the "justifiable" nature of their views regarding the role of a simple RfC is not supported even by some scenario that would justify this claim, nevermind fact, and IMO nonsense. There is absolutely no evidence that an "alternative forum" is sought; it is pure fabrication and paranoia. Brews ohare (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Further disruption
Brews apparently started the same RFC again at Wikipedia talk:Civility. This is a huge waste of time and disruption. Could you please ask a clerk to block Brews. Enough already. Jehochman Talk 20:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears that the RfC has been closed. I am leaving Brews a message asking him to ease off before he digs himself a bigger hole. As the matter seems moot at the moment, I note that a block does not seem needed at the moment. I would also point out my comments about blocking to Brews ohare above. Vassyana (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * He's trying hard to reopen it. Verbal chat  21:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I find this action by Jehochman completely incomprehensible. As a consequence of my experience on Talk:Speed of light I came to the conclusion that the one-line Edit Summary was a cause of escalating dispute. I proposed in Case/Speed of light that this matter be added to a list of things to look into. It occurred to me that I could file an RfC to see what kind of reaction editors would have to such a proposal. That is a perfectly innocent activity; it has absolutely no bearing on Case/Speed of light in any way - if editors think its a great idea or not, it is a question about how WP:Civil is phrased. It has nothing to do with any other activity on WP. For Jehochman to find this RfC some kind of threat to his position on Case/Speed of light is ludicrous at best and paranoia at worst. There is no basis whatsoever for your comment that I am digging myself a hole. This is a normal WP activity. What these actions mean is that anything I do on WP can be claimed somehow to be inappropriate. This is simply shutting me down, and I will be extremely upset if you become a party to such an outrageous activity.

On a previous RfC that was too strongly worded (it made requirements mandatory), I shut the RfC down myself after a modification of WP:Civil was made by Rd232. Before I could do that, Physchim62 blew into the discussion with gratuitous remarks about Case/Speed of light and comments about my "pandering to the aggressive spinners of pseudoscience", and Jehochman chimed in to support these incivilities and irrelevancies. Those actions were found by Hersfold to be entirely acceptable behavior, which already shocks me as they are clear violations of WP guidelines and disruptive of WP at every level. Now we see things being pushed even harder. Brews ohare (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly urge you to reconsider my comments. They are written purely as an individual editor, but also as an editor with considerable experience in dispute resolution, administering difficult areas and arbitration. I'm offering some advice and cordially warning you about the impact of your actions. You are, of course, free to disregard those comments. However, please also realize that they are not simply idle musings. Be well, Vassyana (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would point out to you that my comments about Physchim62 and Jehochman on your Talk page and that of the other Admins in Case/Speed of light was to draw attention to inappropriate behavior, which I hoped you would reign in. Instead, I am now reigned in for opening a completely normal RfC that has no bearing whatsoever upon Case/Speed of light. My very clear and complete explanations above are totally ignored, demonstrating a complete lack of objectivity and balance. I interpret your threats (however kindly put) as a suggestion that I shut down all my activity on WP. I will do so, but I wish to point out that this is wrong, high handed, misinformed and egregious in every way. Brews ohare (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I provided advice about handling offensive comments. I in no way meant to imply or suggest that you should stop editing Wikipedia. My comments were not intended as threats, but as good natured feedback. Telling someone that they are walking terribly close to the edge of cliff is not the same as threatening to push someone off. I am sorry that you have interpreted my remarks otherwise. Vassyana (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Your analogy to the cliff is vivid, but not apt. See here. You determine where the cliff is located, and apparently located it close to me. You choose from whom to protect WP. Brews ohare (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Where I see the cliff is based on the experience I note above and what I have seen in arbitration cases and community discussions over the years. It was not an abitrary choice, but rather based on what I have seen before. Vassyana (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, Woonpton has explained things to me. Brews ohare (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Would the committee please entertain a motion to ban Brews ohare from editing policy pages during the pendancy of this case. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 22:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Very kind of you to leave that barnstar. Tony  (talk)  11:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Entirely my pleasure. You've certainly earned it. I truly appreciate your efforts to make Wikipedia a better place and engage in constructive dialogue. Vassyana (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome!
Though I'm not sure how much good I did. I think that's a first for me, the first time anyone's ever said "thank you" for anything I've done on Wikipedia.

On another topic altogether, although I realize you have other things to deal with and that at this point Abd/WMC must seem remote in importance and urgency to you, I'm still bruised from that case and have been considering whether to respond to something you said on WMC's talk page a while back, although that discussion has long grown stale. I was disheartened by your statement about cabals on the case, then encouraged by your reaching out to WMC to try to resolve any misunderstanding, and disappointed again by your followup response, where you said that while you didn't believe the "cabal" was actively colluding with each other,  it was a group of friends who act together to support each other,  and that's a problem. I don't think you and your fellow arbitrators understood what was going on in that case at all. The fact is that I have never acted to support those people Abd named me as part of a cabal with, have never commented on those RfCs, didn't comment on Abd's ban review, have never edited with them on articles, I wasn't friends with any of them, had never acted as a group to support any of them; many of them I'd never even encountered before. There's just nothing to connect me to those people. That's why I was so incensed about the whole cabal thing, but no one throughout that awful case would ever listen to me, would hear what I was saying. It was as if once I had been named to this cabal, I was put in a category where everything I said could be discounted as just coming from that cabal of supporters of WMC and so not worth paying any attention to. As I said on the case, the whole experience was completely demoralizing. I said I was leaving as a result of the case, and actually I still am, but I've been lingering on the way out the door to see what happens with the speed of light case, which in the main seems to be being handled much better than the other case was handled. Sorry for the intrusion, but that's been bothering me. Woonpton (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Brews ohare seems to better understand what the problem was, I think you did plenty of good. Regardless, I really appreciated your effort. The only thing that I regret is that you have never received a thanks before. Sometimes Wikipedians can get so caught up in pointing out the wrongs that we can forget to recognize the good. I try very hard to avoid the latter. For example, I drafted an arbitration decision sanctioning Snowded, but I've since encouraged him to make a go for the admin bit. As another example, I supported the date delinking decision, but I just gave Tony1 a barnstar for his good faith efforts in providing suggestions for improving arbitration and ArbCom. If you are grateful for my thanks, then please do me the favor of spreading it along. We can do a lot worse than to express a bit of appreciation and gratitude to other Wikipedians. Vassyana (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * On the other point, please do not be apologetic or feel intrusive for raising your concerns and frustrations with me. I try to encourage people to feel free to contact me. I will say that one thing I have learned from the case is to be much more explicit and exacting in my choise of phrasing and context. I believe a portion of my misccmmunication was caused by mixing points about broader phenomena with the specific case at hand. I also think that I just did not communicate clearly enough.
 * There is a broader problem with directly involved editors often overwhelming and skewing community discussions. However, I do not think that the broad net that Abd cast is at all appropriate, nor do I think there's any Friends of Dr. Connolley conspiracy. Also, I noted in some my comments, the cooperation and "collusion" of involved editors and wikifriends is usually undertaken in the best interests of the wiki without any untoward coordination or other abuse of our principles. I especially reject the assertion of some Evil Censorship Cabal that is determined to keep out legitimate dissenting views. As an administrator, I have taken direct action against fringe advocates despite claims of this sort (such as Martinphi and DanaUllman), as well as despite related claims (such as the Evil Cabal completely misrepresenting their edits). As such, I've learned to examine those types of claims with a very skeptical eye.
 * To illustrate my concern, imagine this: You are in a content dispute. Since claims about original research are mentioned, you decide to raise the point at the NOR noticeboard. Within hours, the thread is overwhelmed by those directly involved in the topic area or that have a substantial history of disputes with you. Almost no outside editors comment. The thread is then used as justification for what "consensus" has determined or just as a club for their interpretation (or loophole) of the policy. Would think that is fair or appropriate?
 * Please note I have also said that I believe fringe advocates abusing the system in this way are more of a concern, if for no other reason than their preferred version being much further off-the-mark from our core content policies than those who might take an overdominant position for the mainstream. I hope this helps clarify and regardless, I welcome you to continue discussing this issue if you desire. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, I just noticed this conversation when I came here to let you know I responded to you on my talk page. As you know I was really upset that it was allowed to be used through out the case.  There was never any evidence provided to allow this to be used in evidence.  He just listed names of people.  I was not even considered until we talked on my talk page and I disagreed with him.  I was listed as part of this cabal because of my attitude, or perceived attitudes about fringe ideas.  Abd was right that I lean in the directions that you describe above.  I am not at all scientific and the list of names were mostly editors I never knew.  I think the whole case was a disaster that in my opinion should be scrubbed totally.  It should never have been accepted in my opinion.  The community was dealing with the situation and why it was accepted so quickly is still a question I have.  If it was to go after WMC then it should have been that not the obscure way it was done.  I went to that case, my first case that I watched from beginning to almost the end, surgery came right before it finally closed, because of iVoting at ANI to ban him from the page.  I checked all the difs and it showed, at least to me and apparently others, that the disruptions were occurring.  The request to close that discussion should have been refused and allowed to continue but Abd didn't like the way it was going so he asked for it to be closed and said that it was going to the arbs anyways.  How did he know the case was going to be accepted?  Why weren't the arbs more upset to see Abd back so. I still think that case was wrong in so many ways but I guess that's now water under the bridge.  Thank you though for your explanation.  It does make me feel better to know that you weren't taken in by the claims of a cabal.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  11:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Vassyana, I appreciate your taking the time to respond to my concerns, although unlike Crohnie, I can't say your response addressed or alleviated them. I do understand the difficult (maybe impossible) position arbitrators are put in, and the conflicting demands made of them; I don't envy you the position.  However, a few comments in response:


 * (starting at the bottom) Yes, I did notice, before, your comment that in your opinion, groups of fringe advocates working together are more damaging to the encyclopedia than groups of people trying to maintain neutrality of content; that was part of your comment on WMC's page that discouraged me. If you (and other arbitrators) do recognize the difference in potential damage to the encyclopedia's content,  why is it that those groups of fringe advocates are never identified or sanctioned, while "cabals" of science editors and other defenders of neutral content are dragged off to ArbCom every few months to be scolded or sanctioned, even if they exist only in someone's imagination? What good are those words, if there is no action behind them?  You're not clarifying anything;  you're just repeating what you said before, and it isn't helpful. Sorry if I sound exasperated, but your apparent inability to comprehend what I'm concerned about is rather...exasperating.


 * I appreciate your candor in saying that part of the "miscommunication" was that you mixed points about broader issues with the specific case you were voting on, but that miscommunication has further alienated people who IMO are valuable to the encyclopedia, and empowered those who are not. I don't know if you had this in mind specifically, but your vote against the finding of fact that said  Abd had not provided sufficient evidence for the existence of a cabal,  with your attendant comment about the problem of "involved" people swarming the noticeboards, seems to be a good example of that miscommunication.  The case itself had nothing to do with with groups of people swarming community discussions; only Abd's false claims of a "cabal", the smokescreen he set up to deflect attention from himself, had anything to do with that, and your vote against the proposal validated Abd's false claim.  To say now that you didn't find Abd's characterization ("broad net") to be appropriate, after voting to validate that characterization, is, again, not helpful.  If you wanted to vote a finding that people should stop acting in concert with each other, then it seems to me you should have waited for a case where there's actually some credible evidence that people are acting in concert with each other, instead of trying to hang such a finding on a case where it didn't apply.   At any rate, your vote wouldn't have changed anything, and it doesn't really matter that that FoF passed, since it was essentially nullified by principle 6 saying people should try to avoid the "appearance" of working together, which most observers interpreted as a validation of the cabal claim in contradiction to the finding that there was no evidence supporting the claim.


 * By the way, if I may say so, you're doing the same thing here that you admit you did on the case: you're mixing up a response to my concerns with broad issues that have nothing whatever to do with me. The only noticeboard I watch is the fringe noticeboard, which I have commented on maybe 4-5 times in the 18 months I've been around Wikipedia; I have only commented on user RfCs maybe once or twice, and never on AN/I except for the one report I filed myself. And as far as the fringe noticeboard, I don't believe there's much overlap between the regulars there and the people who were named to the cabal with me. But since you're beating me about the head and shoulders with this issue, even though I've made it  clear I've never participated in that kind of swarming of public discussions, and since you're asking me this hypothetical question, I will answer it in terms of the fringe noticeboard, since that's the only noticeboard I take an active interest in (though rarely commenting there):


 * In general, it seems to me that most of the editors who respond to notices at the fringe noticeboard do so because they are concerned about undue weight given to fringe theories in articles; in other words their purpose is to promote and maintain neutrality of articles relating to fringe topics, and I for one am glad they keep an eye out.  If I were a fringe advocate whose purpose at the project is to promote one or more fringe theories or products, then I probably would be well known to the folks at the fringe noticeboard,  I daresay I wouldn't much like the things they had to say, and I might feel "drowned out" by people I choose to see as "involved" because I've run afoul of them before.  But it would be a mistake, in terms of benefit to the encyclopedia, for an outside observer to take that characterization at face value and see the fringe advocate as a poor soul who is overwhelmed by "involved" editors determined to have their way in a "content dispute." And at any rate, that has nothing to do with me, since I've never participated to any extent on that noticeboard.  Maybe you were talking about something else; maybe you were talking about noticeboards like AN/I, but in that case, I'm not sure why you're talking to me about it, because that's not a place I hang out and I have no interest in what goes on there. You seem to have intended your response to allay my concerns about being falsely singled out and misrepresented as a part of a cabal, but I'm at a complete loss as to how any of this applies to me.  What's more, you seem to be intending this comment to make me feel better:  "As I pointed out in some of my comments, the cooperation and "collusion" of involved editors and wikifriends is usually undertaken in the best interests of the wiki without any untoward coordination or other abuse of our principles," in other words you seem to be saying something to this effect: "yes, I do believe that you have cooperated and colluded with other editors and wikifriends, but I am sure that you have done this only with the best of intentions," and if that's what you're saying, then you haven't heard a word I've said.     Maybe if I say it slower:  I. Have. Never. Acted. In. Concert. With. Anyone. On. This. Encyclopedia. For. Any. Purpose. Good. Or. Ill.   (Are we communicating yet?) Woonpton (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies. If you are simply intending for a clarification specifically about you: I do not believe you are or were a part of any particular cabal or editing group. Vassyana (talk) 06:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, no, that wasn't the point, but thanks for the vindication anyway. What I was hoping for was a comprehensible explanation for why you voted against the finding that Abd had provided no credible evidence for the existence of a cabal, when in your subsequent remarks, including the above, you seem to be agreeing that Abd's evidence for the existence of a cabal was not credible; I was hoping for some recognition and appreciation of why your vote and comment there were  offensive to people who were named as members of this fictitious "cabal."  In your approach to WMC offering to clear up the "misunderstanding" and in your comments above, I see none of that recognition I was hoping for, only abstractions about how bad cabals are for the project.  Well, yes, I'm quite sure that's true, but those sentiments are utterly irrelevant to that case or to the discussion at hand, as the cabal at issue there and here was a figment of Abd's imagination.  I wouldn't use the word WMC used to refer to that vote and comment,  but I haven't yet seen any reasonable justification for them.  It was a mistake on my part to bring it up here, and I won't trouble you further.Woonpton (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

fyi
apologies for possibly dragging out an already painful situation, but I feel you should be aware (if you are not already) that the understanding I, and presumably from your comments on the Motions page, you, held was possibly an error; see here which would seem to be in conflict with Jennavecia's statement to Arbcom, that "he went on as Law and I supported him in that." Either she phrased her statement very poorly, or she is now revising her history. There is concern regarding this on the Motions talk page. I confess I do not at this point know what to believe about this, or whether it makes any difference, but as you mentioned it in your statement on the Motions page I believe you should be made aware of the issue. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 00:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The relevant portion of my vote rationale was based on her explicit statement here. Vassyana (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. Well, then, I see your point. I will hush and take my Nyquil. thanks much for the edifying and rapid response to my note. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 00:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Jenna has given a very plausible explanation that you may want to look at. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have altered my voting comments according. I have also notified both arbitrators that voted in accord with me of the change, in case it alters their position. Vassyana (talk) 03:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Following up
Hi Vassyana. I sent you an email on or about 30 September about your participation in the Abd/WMC case. I was wondering if you had received it, or if you intended to reply (apologies if you did reply and my mail filter ate it.) Thanks, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I did receive it and intend to reply. Thank you for the reminder and my apologies for the delay. If you need further clarification or need other information or assistance, please feel free to contact me via my talk page or email. Vassyana (talk) 06:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Organizing for Success (tm)
Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal

I know that you're very busy, but I'd love a little push from such an esteemed arbitrator such as yourself ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Findings regarding Physchim62
None of your findings pertain to Physchim62, who engaged in attribution of false positions to Brews ohare, threats, and incivility as outlined here. I find the failure bring any findings about this egregious behavior peculiar, and suggestive of an unhealthy avoidance of criticism of an editor with privileges. Perhaps you could explain? Brews ohare (talk) 15:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I question whether going to an Arbitrator's talk page is the appropriate place to discuss Workshop material, such as proposed findings. I thought that is what Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Workshop was for. In fact, Brews posted the same query there. Can we please keep discussion centralized? Do we all now have to place every Arbitrator's talk page on our watchlists to stay aware of whatever campaigning may be going on elsewhere than the arbitration pages themselves? Finell (Talk) 17:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Email
- Ottava Rima (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse
Please see this edit. If you want to take me to arbitration please know I am more than happy to go there and prove that I studiously ignore Mattisse and "her mentors" as much as possible. My advice to you is not to inflame an already volatile situation. You are an Arbitrator - behave like one. Giano (talk) 09:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to be offended by or worried about if the behaviors that I described do not depict your conduct. That said, I will not dishonestly pretend that the problem I describe does not exist because some hackles are raised by the observation. I would be neglecting one of the most fundamental duties of an arbitrator by sticking my head in the sand. Vassyana (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well beleive me, and beleive me well, if this goes back to Arbitration, people will be queing in dozens with their diffs concerning those mentors and their protegee. I was astounded to see even Chillum has been rebuked by them (he won't have liked that), so if I were you, I would try and be a little more diplomatic ans skilful in what I said. Giano (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fainites and Durova have clearly, cordially, and reasonably illustrated the issue. As such, I have collapsed my original statement with with an appropiate comment on the collapse bar. Vassyana (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So I see, but you are an Arb and that is clearly what the Arbs are thinking and it's not what some of Wikipedia's many many editors are thinking. I am of the mind that the whole mentoring thing with Mattisse is failing, and need to return to Arbitration. Hopefully the other Arbs will, in future, study the matter more clearly than you obviously have. Giano (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not mistake being persuaded that a more detailed and nuanced statement is needed for ignorance. If you wish arbitrators to be mindful of your suggestions, I would recommend following the spirit of the examples that persuaded me. Vassyana (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and I would recommend Arbitrators check their facts before making statements, which others pick up on, repreat and capitalise on; the "mentors" are quite misguided enough as it is. That is all I have to say on this matter at present. I hope my name will not be dragged into it again . Giano (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Vassanya, Carcaroth made a comment at the arbitration that Mattisse had been baited by some. That may well be true. However, this comment was repeated and inflated to the point where it became apparent that it appeared that Mattisse saw the mentoring plan as primarily there to protect her and that all complainents were in the category covered by Carcaroths remarks. I anticipate that your comments will be used in the same way to continue to shoot all messengers. See MastCells summary here. Mattisse deserves a mentorship that tackles the real issues about her behaviour so that she can continue as a productive editor.Fainites barley scribs 10:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link and well-expressed concerns. I hold MastCell in very high regard and I am taking all reasonably expressed worries into consideration. This message, in combination with your response at the clarification request, does help me better understand your concerns. I am going to take a day or so to review the various pages and disparate threads again with a fresh eye. If you have a few other relevant or related links illustrating this point, I would appreciate the additional pointers. I will most likely revise and/or expand my comments after taking this additional time to look things over once more. Thank you again for your message. Vassyana (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. :) I was frustrated and not at my most diplomatic when I wrote the diff in question. Not my finest moment, although to be honest it does reflect my opinion. This interaction was sort of the final straw in convincing me that the current form of mentorship was unproductive. But on the other hand, I've noticed that the situation surrounding this particular editor tends to bring out the worst in me, so I think I'll bow out entirely. I'll leave it your (collective) capable hands to sort out. :) MastCell Talk 05:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

An editor is harassing me
User:Daedalus969 has left a total of seven heavy-handed messages on my talk page after I have warned him repeatedly to stop. He continues to do so even though I have threatened to report his behavior to WP authorities. This conflict started over an edit I made to Where the Wild Things Are (film). However, Daedalus969 kept posting messages on my talk page even after I agreed to leave the edit off of the article until I could improve it with additional citations. This is beginning to feel like cyberstalking.

I want to report him to WP authorities but I really don't know where to go with such a complaint. Can you point me in the right direction? Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 03:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops. I meant to say six messages. I miscounted. However he left two more for me, making for a total of eight on my talk page within six hours, not counting messages elsewhere like the ones below. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, talk about a lie. I left six messages for you, and none of them were harassment, they were each explaining a specific thing, mainly relevant policies that you had violated.  Specifically, WP:TALK, WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOTMYSPACE.  Secondly, you did not warn me repeatedly to stop.  You told me twice to leave you alone because I was annoying you.  First, You told me to leave your talk page because it was only supposed to be used for praise(if it isn't something positive, don't post).  I then responded, telling you that user talk pages were supposed to be used for user-to-user communication, and that article talk pages are only to be used for improving the article, not user-to-user disputes, as you suggested they should.  I had previously warned you about our policies on original research, I then followed up that post with a request to sign your posts, and noted that citing a policy in an edit summary does constitute a warning.  None of them were heavy-handed.  They were all civil and blunt.  The three previous messages were before you told me to stay off your talk page.  Back to the present, I fixed my signature on one of my posts and fixed another small error.  These don't count as posts, as to when you said above that I left seven messages, when I actually only left six.  I also replied further, when you told me to stop acting like an admin that any user is allowed to warn any other user, and finally, I left a link to the policy page that says this.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  04:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For transparency, I recently replied to him, telling him to go to ANI if he seeks admin assistance. This makes the message total seven, but to be clear, when he originally posted to this talk page, it was six.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  04:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So, to make sure I'm absolutely clear, contrary to your complaint that, "User:Daedalus969 has left a total of seven heavy-handed messages on my talk page after I have warned him repeatedly to stop."(emphasis mine), I left four messages on your user talk page before you asked me to stop(because I was annoying you) and three messages after you told me to stop, the final message telling you about WP:ANI.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  04:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Warning a user of relevant policies and replying to messages left on my own(user talk page) is hardly harassment. If I followed you around and inserted myself in conflicts, siding against you, that would be wikistalking and harassment, but, as is the case, I am doing neither.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  04:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're being pretty heavy handed and bitey, Daedalus969. You need to back off, and especially refactor the comment above where you called the other editor a liar.  I will hold off on blocking you in hopes that you'll take these clues to heart. Jehochman Talk 12:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there.
I am conserned about your comment "This is so straight forward that WP:ARBPIA and WP:AE should not be necessary". If this mean Im going to be blocked as a racist I insist to have my story told befor. The quotes taken out of context and situation is not collected in good faith. Please read my statement and make sure to look at Jiujitsuguy:s way of act. He bombed both my wikiquett and ANI complaint with redicilus accusations and been attacking me with mostly lies afterward. The racistframing is really bad intended. It is not a stright forward case. I will be much disapointed if such a easy trick works on wikipedia. So I ask you to, if not yourself, make sure other admins take a deeper look in this case and not just decide Im breaking policys regarding racistic slander enough to leading to a block by a shallow look at those quotes. Regards Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The matter is not terribly difficult to puzzle out, including looking at the context of various statements with a discerning eye. I make no comment or statement as to who is right or wrong in this instance, leaving that to an uninvolved administrator. Vassyana (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I have bad experience about reactions on Jiujitsuguys accusations. It took some claricication to get this vandalwarning changed to this removed editwarrarning . If I get blocked my chanse of expose Jiujitsuguys shenagans is dificult. And that would be kind of anoying. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Vassyana, I have to be honest, I feel that I am being wronged here. After your suggested topic ban, I made a concious decision that I was going to impose on myself a voluntary topic ban and try my best to work things out with scuro. Check edit history of ADHD articles, I have not edited them or even the article talk pages apart from reverting vandalism since last ammendment request. Can I ask you one on one have you read my efforts with scuro on my talk page?User_talk:Literaturegeek

I took these steps specifically to avoid drama.

You also recused from the ADHD arbcom case and I am sorry I wish I didn't have to ask you but respectfully what is your "exceptionally strong" views on ADHD which made you recuse from the initial case and does it have any bearing on your push for me to be topic banned? I am willing to in good faith extend my voluntary topic ban but to be involuntarily banned for from my perspective is unjustified I am having difficulty swallowing. I mean no disrespect, I understand your job with the arbcom is very stressful and you deal with drama day in and day out. Sorry to bother you.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  23:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm am short on time at the moment, so replying very briefly to your legitimate question: Nothing related to my views came up during the arbitration or in the discussions that I have seen. Before the case, I was unsure if my views would come into play and bias my view in the case. Please do not feel the need to be apologetic for coming to me. You should always feel welcome to contact me with feedback, questions, requests for assistance, and so on. I will reply a bit more when I have an opportunity later. Vassyana (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you for your honest reply which I accept. You have allayed my concerns regarding that mattter. I accept that you have no conflict of interest. Also thank you for the welcoming tone of your message. My other question is more important though and that is if you have read my interactions with scuro since the ammendment request on my talk page?
 * My other concerns is that you and other arbcom staff members voted before any evidence was presented which I am concerned now will make it unlikely that a majority will reverse their votes no matter what evidence is presented. I still feel an injustice is being served. As you are busy now, please do take your time in replying to this message.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  00:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

A punishment for befitting of the crime
I promise you I am not stalking you hehe (joking with you)! :) I have a final idea which I would ask you to consider. This topic ban makes no sense. This dispute is not about article content but is beyond that but is personal and is occuring on user talk pages, character assassinating people, playing games and in my case I admit getting distressed, losing my cool and personalising. Surely a more logical approach would be to pass a motion stating, any personalising of disputes, disruption of the editing environment or abuse of editors time will result in a block of up to one week, extended to a topic ban or a block of 3 months or something after several violations. I have from the outset practically begged the arbcom to pass motions to resolve disruptive behaviour, I still feel this is the right approach. To propose a topic ban when for the first time myself and scuro are making progress and when the recent dispute is not even about article content is throwing the baby out with the bath water and may not even be effective judging by some ongoing drama that I am not involved in. I could fully accept a motion which was to me likely to be effective and is aimed at addressing the actual violations. A topic ban seems like taking an anthill out with a shotgun. No disrespect intended, I hope you have a good day.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  13:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My suggested proposal should have included the addition of a voluntary topic ban turned into an enforced one if I violate it.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  14:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you feel that a general conduct probation would be a more appropriate and fitting sanction for you? Would you be willing to accept such a measure? See: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light for a recent example. Please let me know ASAP. Vassyana (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that looks very good and much more appropriate and fair. Do we report violations to arbcom enforcement? Admin noticeboard I have found to be a terrible venue for complex cases and can serve to fuel drama but if needs be I would accept it regardless of where violations are reported admin noticeboard or not. Does this ruling cover ADHD and associated articles or would this ruling be wikipedia project wide? Thank you so much for considering my suggestion. :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  16:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally, such a probation would be project-wide. AE would be the appropriate forum for enforcement. It is more structured that the admin noticeboards and the volunteers there are very adept and experienced at analyzing complex circumstances. Do you wish to see a comparable restriction for Scuro? If so, why? (Also, if so, please leave a talk page message for him so he has a chance to comment here.) Vassyana (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. That is good that AE is where we report violations. A remedy for scuro I feel needs to cover WP:BATTLE, and WP:DISRUPT. These are in this case the core policies which I feel if any serious violation occurs results in a block for 1 week, for repeated violations increasing to 3 month ban and or a topic ban. Disruption, broadly defined, eg character assassinating, prolonged and circular arguing, battlefield behaviour. Prolonged and huge volumes of text being typed for days or weeks on end is also a major problem regardless of whether it occurs on a user talk or article talk page. One fear is a topic ban on its own would just move the drama onto user talk pages and wiki projects etc. I think that a warning of article probation being an option should also be kept as an warning to editors for a worst case scenario; the last thing anyone needs is more "new" POV warriors joining this drama either independently or being recruited, so leaving this option on the table should resolve this possible scenario, topic bans should also be left as an option for repeated violations for the same reasons.


 * Ultimately it is up to arbcom to draft the motion, I just would like it to cover the main drama and sort this out once and for all, sensibly, fairly and firmly. What I have wrote I feel is covering all bases to resolve drama now as well as in the future, i.e. putting an end to it once and for all.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  17:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have notified scuro here.User_talk:Scuro-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  18:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Problems in other areas
Please see my comments here about Literaturegeek's behavior in non-ADHD articles. Sorry to bug you on your talkpage, but I don't want this to get lost in the shuffle of the motions being passed. Thanks, Skinwalker (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I responded here.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  07:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

situation
I have an interest in a situation because before I was accused of being a sock (I was not) but I have been keeping up with both the accusers and the sockmaster.

I see now see a situation where a user has a tactic of accusing enemies of being a sock in order to indef block them. This is manipulation.

If a user A is hounding/stalking user 1, then user 1 can rightly suspect user A of being a sock.

However if user A is just editing articles, then user 1 starts to hound/stalk user A (following them to articles and changing them), then when user A complains, user 1 then escalates the dispute even more and asks an administrator friend to block as a suspected sock. The admin says cavalierly "I may be wrong but they can always appeal". You know that ArbCom is so busy and unblock requests are routinely denied (even ArbCom admitted that denial is the usual result).

Is this a valid concern?

Also, can you confirm that I am not in Chicago, which would clear me of being a sock. Spevw (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide some specific links to the matter? Without knowing the details of the situation, I cannot provide much advice about such a situation. If you would prefer, you may email me instead of replying on my talk page. Vassyana (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=320559184

That person's diff is VERY wordy. In essence, Tvoz is not telling the truth and has never edited Derek Jeter but then claims she is a Yankees fan. In truth, she wikistalked PresChicago and when he complained on ANI, her close colleague closed the thread (preventing discussion) and indef banned PresChicago using the sock excuse. Stalking someone and then calling them a sock is illogical. If you are stalked, then the stalker may be a sock...that's logical. Even the blocking admin writes that he could be wrong but cavalierly says that the person can appeal. This is the classic shoot first and say the police can be convicted if they did wrong. I am not going to fight all out to right this wrong but it is disturbing since I've been accused of being a sock twice (one of them involving the same sockmaster as PresChicago), all based on a witchhunt. Spevw (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Any response? A lack of enthusiasm to do the right thing and let the above injustice continue (stalker wins, regular editor attacked) is bad for wikipedia. It certainly has reduced my enthusiasm to edit and add knowledge. Spevw (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have noted that you seem to be regularly interested in sockpuppet accusations. I am sorry if you have had a bad experience, but your approach and interpretation of matters seems highly skewed. Whether or not the sock accusation proved justified (though it does seem very likely based on reasoning and evidence), the misrepresentation of Tvoz's truthfulness and the worst assumptions about her motives is not helping me sympathize with your concerns. I was able to quickly verify that Tvoz has indeed had an interest in the Yankees for at least three years on Wikipedia. (See: and .) Also, I note that it was not Tvoz that raised the sockpuppetry possibility. Many of your previous comments in such situations appears to be similarly biased and/or misguided. Please take a step back and look over matters. They do not appear to be as you present them. Vassyana (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. Tvoz is highly toxic. If Tvoz ever accuses me of being someone's sock, you should step in and stop this nonsense. Tvoz did stalk KingChicago since she never edited that before but followed him there. But I will step back because there is a limit to how much I will stick up for someone else. Thanks again. Spevw (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Bravo
Much respect for the way you handled this. I think decline is the right vote, btw. Bravo! :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! If I may ask, what about it caught it your attention? Vassyana (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it is probably most attributable to your response dovetailing with my feelings towards the case request. While I didn't really support opening a case (nor was I consulted), there are some serious problems with the editor in question.  Also, in my past experiences with other official actions (ArbCom, ANI, RSN, etc.), the whole point of the matter ends up getting lost in the shuffle -- people get sidetracked on policy arguments, solutions never get proposed/implemented, etc.  I felt obligated to comment (as the actual issues are completely correct and valid), but I didn't really feel like we were at the ArbCom stage yet.  That you both declined the case, yet recognized and addressed some of the issues seemed like a very judicious and appropriate response, so I guess I wanted to thank you for being right.  Ha ha :)  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor Assitance on Involuntary euthanasia
Involuntary euthanasia

I made an edition on involuntary euthanasia. But Ratel deletes it again and again. We discussed Ratel's questions, but now he is not giving arguments but acussations. He says the gramar must be improved but doesn't help but deletes. Therefore here I'm asking for an editor assitance.

See the discussion here: Talk:Involuntary_euthanasia

This is my edition and the quote box I added to the article:


 * 190.25.99.55 (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Question
I posted that asking for someone to remove a claim of sanctions by a user I took to ArbCom immediately after he attempted to make such claims (and after threats) when he was an involved user in a dispute that lasted over a year and involved a lot of admin meat puppetry and intimidation. As I pointed out, only two people "supported" his claim and three people said he had no right. This would mean there was no consensus to make such a sanction as per the "community". Should I post an ArbCom Request for Clarification on the matter asking about individual admins making such entries on that list, since it is an ArbCom restriction list as well as community wide consensus list? Could ArbCom even handle it, or could it simply by removing something that shouldn't be there without any further ado? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse
A report has been prepared as requested and is here: User:SilkTork/Report.  SilkTork  *YES! 17:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Spirits and fundamental principles
deceptive and disruptive use of alternative or new accounts is the problem addressed by the sockpuppetry policy. And unjustifiable blocks and lies perpetrated by checkusers is the kind of problem Arbcom was set up to address. If either could be justified by now, the facts would have been provided, the policy words or commonsense interpretation of policy would have been provided -- something that I could have reasonably understood by looking at WP:SOCK and what Versageek should have understood from WP:BLOCK. I did no actual harm. Lar and Versageek did do actual harm. Address that, please. JohnWBarber (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It boils down to this: Where was I deceptive beyond what WP:CLEANSTART allows and how was I disruptive in any meaning of the word "disruptive" that regular editors are supposed to be able to understand? By writing your comment the way you did, you're perpetuating the lie, not addressing it. JohnWBarber (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've responded to you again at the RFAR talk page. And I've again asked you to take out the implication that I was "disruptive" in your first comment at the RFAR page, or justify calling my actions "disruptive". JohnWBarber (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And here's another comment on the talk page pointing out another change I'd like you to make in your statements. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification
Regarding the BNP article, I take you comment to mean that Elonka is incorrect in her unilateral imposition of 1R/week to that article using "the troubles" as an excuse? Verbal chat  14:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not 100% clear on that either. I've added something to the page in a bid to make the issue simpler. There's a lot of text there admittedly, which in a way is part of the problem - does it really take this much effort of posting on endless noticeboards to get something relatively simple sorted out? It would have been much easier if Elonka had just admitted her error and reversed her action early on. --Nickhh (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe my further comments and Nmcvocalist's elaboration should clarify this matter, insofar as I am concerned as an arbitrator. Vassyana (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I read that you are not supporting this imposition by Elonka, and that a simple RfC would suffice to remove it? Verbal chat  11:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am neither supporting nor rejecting at this juncture. However, I would support the results of a valid RfC, both as a regular editor and in my role as a arbitrator. The validity and importance of community decisions is a major thing in my book, quite fundamental to the wiki model. Vassyana (talk) 11:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I agree. I also feel the misuse of community decisions is fundamentally unsound. I will maybe propose an RfC tomorrow, I'm too busy today. Best, Verbal chat  12:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Principles of care and justice
You recently voted on a topic ban. I feel it important to state the following:

Facts


 * the clarification request clearly demonstrated that abuse had occurred.
 * administrators were to watch for further instances.
 * harassment/ false accusations continued.
 * harassment/ false accusations were part of two amendment topic ban requests against me, which the very same administrators were overseeing.
 * harassment/ false accusations were part of the administrative topic ban proposals. The same administrators were overseeing this sanction process also.
 * In a half year there are hundreds of examples of false accusations/harassment through at least half a dozen sanction processes. I have made numerous administrators aware of this and no direct warning has ever been given.


 * even though numerous allegations were made against me during two arbitration amendment requests, no action was deemed necessary.
 * an administrator agreed to hear my amendment request as part of the two amendment requests.
 * this administrator was asked repeatedly to confirm that I would be allowed to file the request. No response was given and the amendment proposals were closed without my proposals being heard. It had been stated clearly that my proposals were to deal with harassment/ false accusations.
 * administrators who were part of the amendment request then filed a topic ban proposal. They offered no specific evidence and answered no question, even though they were repeatedly asked to do so.
 * they never formally communicated with the accused during the procedure.
 * The only evidence offered was by an uninvolved administrator who offered one diff which was shown to be totally bogus.
 * Reasoning was given for the topic ban but again the logic behind the conclusions never had to stand up to any scrutiny.
 * a year long topic ban was given to myself. The other party received no sanction, no warning, no advisement.

Questions

1)By pointing out harassing behaviour it has been assumed that there is, "a failure of either to work together or disengage”, and that "breathing room" was needed. Why must one have breathing room when one is being harassed? Why has no administrator ever intervened in any way against many false, blatant, and spiteful comments against me?

2)How can one disengage from harassment, especially when part of the harassment is the filing of sanction processes that include a number of bogus accusations?

3)If administrators discounted numerous allegations of wrongdoing during the two amendment requests, why did administrators make further accusations and propose a new topic ban?

Principles of care and justice

1)In a community, those in charge have a duty of care. No one should have to endure months of ongoing abuse.

2)A basic principle of any form of justice is that those making claims can be challenged, and that they must respond.

3)A basic principle of any form of justice is the separation of duties. One party can not start a process, make accusations, not communicate with the accused, and then vote for sanctions.

The sanction process is a "blunt instrument" but it shouldn't be an indifferent instrument and punitive instrument. I view the year long topic ban as unjust. How would I appeal it?--scuro (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You may contact the ban appeals subcommittee. They will send you a return email with instructions and advice for appealing your sanctions. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask.


 * Vassyana,


 * Thank you for your suggestion.


 * The topic ban breaks with several wildly held principles of communal justice.
 * 1) that no one is above the law. If an administrator files a topic ban proposal, then they are accountable for any claims that they make within that proposal. The accused has a right to hear from those making accusations. They did not provide specific evidence, communicate directly in any fashion with the accused, or explain their reasoning when questioned.
 * 2) that those in charge of this sanction process are accountable that no ongoing harassment/abuse take place during the procedure which they have implemented. This would hold especially true if serious past abuse has been previously demonstrated.
 * 3) that those who initiate a procedure not also vote on that procedure.
 * 4) that the greater the sanction, the higher the burden of proof required. As mentioned previously, only one totally bogus diff was offered by an uninvolved administrator as specific evidence.


 * Wikipedia has set up topic bans in a very transparent manner. Any wikipedian can access such a sanction process. This topic ban amendment procedure was accessible to all. Yet the really important bits like evidence and vetted justification, were not at all visible to the community. Your suggestion of appealing to the arbcom mailing list will not solve these major problems. That process would also be opaque. The only solution for wikipedia is get rid of the topic ban until such a time when the participants have been given the a bare minimum amount of respect during the process, the case has actually been made, and then it has been voted upon. Consensus does not excuse indifference or mistreatment of any contributor.--scuro (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

New suggestion for Brews Ohare
Hi,

I wrote on the Arbcom/Clarification page a suggestion to move forward in a i.m.o. more realistic way. Count Iblis (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Tang Dynasty
Vassyana -- Please add your voice at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Tang Dynasty.

In particular, I would be looking for comments consistent with the point-of-view you expressed at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#WP:BURDEN at the article level (permanent link).

Having stepped back after the ArbCom case was decided in June, I explicitly credit your voice as the inspiration to revisit Joseon Tongsinsa -- see link to Vassyana's words at Talk:Joseon Tongsinsa. This was one of the articles I created before I Caspian blue entered my editing experience.

Arguably, my temerity was the first step on the path which led to where I find myself today.

I would hope that your comments might be helpful for someone considering whether to become involved with me as a mentor, perhaps with the imprimatur of ArbCom.

Although not explicitly crediting you, I thought that I was following your lead at Talk:Joseon Tongsinsa. As it happens, this was my initial attempt to work with Historiographer in a talk page venue. Unspecified disputes with this contributor are explicitly identified by Caspian blue and Teeninvestor as demonstrating why I need a mentor. In this context, perhaps you might be willing to scan what I posted for Historiographer to read on this talk page; and in my view, the threads at Talk:Joseon missions to Imperial China reveal a similar pattern. With this background, your contribution to the ArbCom decision-making can be better informed.

It may be useful to explain that if I were to select threads which I thought were representative of a larger problem, these would be the first ones I would offer a prospective mentor.

In the process of looking for the names of those who might be prospective mentors, I also need to develop a strategy to explain and illustrate the kinds of issues which have turned out to be problematic for me. --Tenmei (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

What this means
 So if somebody edits an article, and person disagreeing with him starts a vote on "should we remove information contributed by x" it means that that said editor can't react, defend his sources, debate the change in the proposed vote. In effect this gives an automatic delete right on anything contributed by the editors mentioned.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I kindly asked on clarification on this ruling:  --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

EEML
I was hoping for you to respond to my enquiry, but I’m not sure if you’ve actually seen it. I left a note in that regard at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list/Proposed decision. – Would you please take a look at what I said, and clarify your intentions for me whether directly below my own statement, or if you want, here or on my talk page. In your proposed remedies 11B and 11C you suggested that all list members without exception be sanctioned indefinitely. I'm sure you didn't mean to propose anything unjust, but you might have overlooked the fact that the proposed decision includes people who did nothing wrong. Unfortunately, my earlier pleas to Coren to make that distinction in his own proposed FoFs were left unanswered. Thanks in advance for your patience. --Poeticbent talk  17:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Curious about your vote change
Here. Could you tell me what motivated it? Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Message in your inbox
Sure thing, just read your message. <span style="font-size:0.9em; font-family:Georgia,serif; font-style:italic;">&mdash; PretzelsHii! 21:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, I'm going to pass this on to Sage, User:Ragesoss. Hiding T 21:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. I have removed the permalink from the article, and added a small explanation to maintain some degree of editorial independence. I expect there will be further changes from other authors pre-publication. <span style="font-size:0.9em; font-family:Georgia,serif; font-style:italic;">&mdash; PretzelsHii! 21:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all three of you for responding so quickly! I really appreciate it and your due care in this matter. Vassyana (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Be bold, and all that :) <span style="font-size:0.9em; font-family:Georgia,serif; font-style:italic;">&mdash; PretzelsHii! 13:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No sweat
It's cool. Hiding T 16:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for keeping an eye out for the Signpost. This was a tense topic to cover, and we're always happy to have input from anyone and everyone about what is and isn't appropriate, especially on things like this.--ragesoss (talk) 03:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

In reply to your “deleted contributions and warning”
Vassyana, I have to say that your deletion of my recent contributions did appear - at least to my mind – a somewhat kneejerk reaction to what was a serious factual addition to the Kevin R. D. Shepherd article. I was certainly unaware at the time that my contributions were infringing any rules. I do of course realize that certain policies need to be adhered to, and that as a newbie to Wikipedia I may not be aware of all the policies, but would it not have been more helpful to proffer editorial advice on how my recent contributions could have been improved, rather than issuing a stark warning as if I were deliberately intent on committing some disgraceful crime? The deleted additional section “Criticism”, along with the relevant notes, was an honest attempt to balance the article by providing verifiable information on Shepherd’s major critic. That critic, a recognized apologist for the Sathya Sai Baba sect, is conspicuously visible on the Web due to a number of transparently extremist and hostile web sites targeted at ex-devotees. Shepherd is not an ex-devotee of the Sathya Sai Baba sect, but as mentioned in the deleted contributions had included three appendices (totalling 30 pages in an annotated work of 320 pages) in a book published in 2005 that made reference to the concerns of ex-devotees. To the Internet critic’s mind that apparently justifies a campaign to discredit Shepherd; and with over twenty entries showing on the first eight pages of Kevin R. D. Shepherd’s Google name list in November 2009 this is clearly an extremist sectarian reaction by any form of reckoning. The Internet critic’s former controversial association with Wikipedia through the page on Sathya Sai Baba is a known fact, and indeed eventually led to a ban. Unfortunately there is a Wikipedia User page for that person (User:SSS108/Kevin Shepherd) still currently and prominently linked to Shepherd on the Web through Google, and yet without any reference displayed that the user was in fact banned. Let me be clear, that User page originated as “axe-grinding” exercise against Robert C. Priddy (an ex-devotee of Sathya Sai Baba mentioned in Shepherd’s book), as became well known, and developed as a duel between the critical user and a Wiki editor known as Andries. In an attempt to snub Priddy, the critical user had removed an editorial quote about Shepherd (which Priddy had used as a reference) and stigmatised his book. Please note that Shepherd was at the time oblivious of all this and had nothing to do with the bickering. I personally feel that the Wikipedia User page in question should be removed as it is being inappropriately employed as part of an on-going “axe-grinding” activity against Shepherd, and thus draws the name of Wikipedia into disrepute.

If you have any constructive suggestions on how I can re-incorporate the deleted contributions in a manner that would conform to Wikipedia policy, I would be most grateful. Also, advice would be appreciated on how to resolve the issue of an edit by redletternight on the Sheriar Mundegar Irani discussion page re the removal of a reference to Shepherd’s annotated book From Oppression to Freedom: A Study of the Kaivani Gnostics (Cambridge, 1988). This book (as with Shepherd’s other books) is not “original research” in the Wikipedia sense, but employs diverse source materials from noted specialist scholars. The editor’s decision was evidently influenced. Alex jamieson (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse, Motion 2.2
Forgive me for getting in direct contact, however I have serious concerns about this motion:

"Mattisse is indefinitely banned from participating in FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors with whom she has had previous conflicts."

The wording is imprecise and is likely to lead to difficulty in implementing which will cause more conflict than it is intended to resolve.

Problems of wording:


 * "FACs, FARs, GANs, GARs or DYKs of editors" - The intention is to avoid Mattisse being involved in any article quality assessment process of articles where certain users have been significant editors. The wording, however, doesn't make that clear, and doesn't give guidance as to when a person is a significant editor.


 * "editors with whom she has had previous conflicts." - This is also unclear. Again, there are people in mind, but they are not named, as they normally would be in an ArbCom case. I do not know who all these people are, so I cannot advise Mattisse on this matter - and Mattisse herself may not know who would consider themselves to have had a previous conflict with her.


 * "indefinitely banned" - This is going against the spirit of the case, which is to allow the mentoring process some time to work, to give Mattisse an opportunity of working toward co-operative and harmonious editing. Motion 2.3 has a 6 month restriction, which appears more appropriate.

This case has gone on for quite a time now, and it would be a shame for all concerned if in an attempt to close it quickly before the holiday season these ambiguities were not addressed.

Clearer, more workable options may be:


 * 1) Mattisse is banned from FACs and FARs for 6 months.
 * 2) Mattisse is banned from tagging Featured Articles for 6 months.
 * 3) Users who have difficulty working with Mattisse are to make themselves known to ArbCom who will then inform  Mattisse and Mattisse's advisers. Then for 6 months, Mattisse is to check the Revision history statistics of Featured Articles she wishes to become involved with by editing, tagging, talkpage comment or article quality assessment to see if any of these users are among the top five contributors. If any of these users are among the top five contributors, then Mattisse is to consult with her advisers and await a response before getting involved.

I have removed DYK and GA from the list, as these are not significant problem areas. Incidents there have been isolated. I feel some or all of these options, or a variation of them, would be acceptable to all concerned, and are worth considering.  SilkTork  *YES! 01:59, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your message. I can see that the general cynicism towards Mattisse and her mentors could seem like that to an observor. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree though. I am afraid that people who feel they have been targeted by Mattisse over long periods of time may well appear hypersensitive to those merely reading the diffs but they are unlikely to be persuaded otherwise. You might like to read this. But at the end of the day, does any of that matter now if a solution is found and the Plan works? I cannot see how assuming bad faith on the part of those who feel aggrieved helps. Nearly all of them are editors in good standing, not known for causing trouble, forming cabals or pursuing vendettas. Any "FAC editors" will have gone through countless tough reviews. How likely is it that this disparate collection of editors have banded together to bait and vilify just Mattisse for no good reason? Mattisses poking of other editors, particularly One Who has Asked Not To Be Named tends to increase the more trouble she gets into, derailing everything when there are trenchantly worded responses. Personally I stay out of the way except for official processes where evidence is required, but I do look out for things. I maintain that I have not seen anybody set out to "bait" Mattisse. I have seen some very strong and unfortunately worded views expressed about her in circumstances where, rightly or wrongly, others feel she is baiting them. I can see how those who do not come from the same perspective as people with histories with Mattisse could see this as a form of "wind-up" or baiting of Mattisse. In general I don't think it actually is. Let's hope the Plan works. Plenty of space for every one.Fainites barley scribs 22:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * On your offer to provide specific examples, I would like to see them as I haven't seen any. (I'm not saying there isn't any!)Fainites barley scribs 23:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To add to Fainites' comments, I think that one powerful (and unfortunate) message from this case is that it's necessary to jump up and down and climb the Reichstag in order to be taken seriously. From the start of the case, and even beforehand, I was struck by how much deference was given to Mattisse's hurt feelings, and by how little was given to the feelings of those hurt by her behavior. The message I heard was: people will respond if you react melodramatically to a perceived insult, whereas if you shrug it off and ignore it, no one takes it seriously. That creates a perverse system of unspoken incentives. Moni3 kind of cinched it - she was raising important, cogent, and prescient concerns about the situation from early on, and no one took those complaints very seriously. Finally, she got vocally upset, and suddenly things started happening. That sends a message - you need to be melodramatic to be heard. Actually, the handling of Mattisse already sent that message, and subsequent events merely amplified it. The same is true of the mentorship. It got off to a frankly disastrous start - the mentors' response to Mattisse's sockpuppetry was extraordinarily unperceptive and counterproductive - but again, it wasn't until people started making a fuss, and criticizing the mentorship with hyperbolic rhetoric, that things got any better. Now, I have to agree, the mentors seem to be trying something new in terms of setting and enforcing boundaries, which I think has a better chance of succeeding than anything that has been tried so far - but look at how much kicking and screaming it took to get them to that point, which should have been the starting point in the first place. And people were saying as much, calmly and civilly, as far back as the Arbitration case - for a mentorship to succeed, the mentors have to set limits and enforce them rather than just sitting back as enablers and advocates. But no one really paid much attention until the same point was made with more drama, hyperbole, and rhetorical excess. That's my perspective, having watched the whole situation unfold, and participated in parts of it; I think the underlying message has been that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and hyperbole or emotional blackmail get people to listen where calm and rational discussion doesn't. If you see people acting dramatically or "baiting" Mattisse, then from my perspective it's worth considering those responses in the framework of incentives that this case has produced. MastCell Talk 23:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The points you both raise as well-taken. However, I think that some nuance needs to be considered, or rather that some lines needs to be drawn. The irony should not be lost on either of you that one of the main complaints about Mattisse's conduct pattern is acute assumptions of bad faith coupled with severe overreaction. There is a massive distinction between hyperbolic treatment of actual problems and hyperbole that makes mountains out of (sometimes non-existent) molehills. To draw from the example raised and the last major complaint during the clarification/amendment process, there's a gulf of difference between being a bit over the top about sockpuppetry and typifying a purely non-confrontational wikignome edit as part of a pattern of harassment. I did not complain about nor demean complaints in the vein of the former. The presence of legitimate complaints does not justify nor excuse patently unsupportable blustering and mudslinging. Some of the complaints about Mattisse were spot on or at the very least founded in very reasonable concerns. On the other side of the scale, some of the complaints seemed completely groundless (though I will not speculate about the motivations or reasons for such). The former expressed in frustration with a bit of hyperbole is quite understandable. The latter is quite unacceptable. I hope this helps better clarify my perspective and rationale in this matter. Vassyana (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - in the sense that these things are frequently a matter of perspective and complicated by varying degrees of emotional involvement. (I always find it odd that people talk about emotional involvement as if it were inherently wrong - as if we weren't all humans). The wiki-gnome edit on the Swedish allottment article was accompanied by a talk page edit though. People with a history with Mattisse may well over-react to Mattisse appearing on an article they have worked on saying it is unsourced and unreferenced, but that reaction is I believe, genuine and not cynical.Fainites barley scribs 09:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * @Vassyana: Sure - you know I think you're wise, reasonable and sane, which is mainly why I left my thoughts here instead of on one of the many ArbCom case-related pages (despite my previous vow here). I've found it very fulfilling to ignore the whole situation surrounding Mattisse - which is probably ideal since I don't think it brings out the best in me - but the meta-issues surrounding the case retain some interest for me, especially since it's the first "test case" of highly structured, ArbCom-imposed mentorship that I can recall. I think what you're saying is sensible about the need to maintain a sense of perspective. Obviously, leaving a few requests for additional sourcing on FA talk pages isn't exactly earth-shattering antagonism, even if we assume the posts were targeted. I haven't spoken to Sandy, or anyone else, about the incident, but my point was just that it occurred in a context where it's been necessary to create a fuss to get anyone to pay attention, which is where (I think) a lot of the overreaction comes from. I think there's reason to be hopeful that the situation really is improving. MastCell Talk 20:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you for taking the time to better express all of this to me. Moving forward, I certainly hope the situation improves. Regardless, this has given me a lot to think about in regards to structured mentorship, being more aware of frustrated (in both senses) concerns, and related issues. After a bit of time, probably after the new year, I'm going to look back over everything again to refresh my perspective of the matter and try to take away from lessons from the situation. Would it be OK to prod both of you with some ideas and questions for feedback at that time? Vassyana (talk) 21:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, anytime. MastCell Talk 22:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, fine.Fainites barley scribs 00:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it: if you want my take on externally imposed mentorship in the form of a paraphrase from Candide, see the quotebox in this thread. :) MastCell Talk 18:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Question/11C
I am concerned that editors that were highly unneutral and with determined POV might shift to a course of editing for a certain times other articles, and later applying for adminship using the opportunity that people who know their edits best will be silenced. Later they can use admin authority against people they were in dispute of in topics they presented POV and to which they will return. Do you believe such situation is recommended. Why should I be not allowed to remind others of the past problems of the editor by providing wikilinks to specific actions that happened on Wikipedia ? Essentialy-what constructive purpouse does such ruling serve to the good of Wiki ? I just don't see anything justifing it. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Note
Ottava Rima (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD
The following AfD: Articles for deletion/Kevin R. D. Shepherd, which concerns an article that you have had previous involvement with, has just been relisted and would benefit from wider input. Best, -- JN 466  02:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Iannes
How does "The Comprehensive New Testament (with blah blah blah)" not meet WP:RS guidelines? Ian.thomson (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is essentially self-published. Cornerstone Publishing is owned by the authors of the CNT and mainly exists to publish their work. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a vanity press, as that is pejorative, but it certainly falls well short of the standards for editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking required by our reliable source standards. Vassyana (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

re: Paid propagandists
First, take time to enjoy the holiday season, it only comes once a year. Second, in case you are no longer checking the EEML case, "paid propagandists" referred to confirmed paid propagandists (and multi-sock-puppeteers) William Mauco and Des Grant ("Mark Street") on articles involving Transnistria ("frozen conflict zone" with Russia). Please do not attribute accusations to myself that I have not made. Best regards, <small style="background:white; border: 1px solid #a12830;"> PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА  ►talk 15:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

AE or Arb Amendments?
Hi Vassyana, I just wanted to make sure you were aware of why I filed the request the way I did. On May 29, the Committee upheld my topic ban via email (Roger Davies). I contacted the Committee via email again (and again through Roger) on Dec 4 to make my current request (that the indefinite topic-ban be replaced with a two-year ban). He suggested I file a request with AE for a "public sounding". I did so on Dec 7. The ban was suspended on Dec. 8 and Henrik told me to return to AE at the end of the one-month trial period. I did so on January 3. Here's how it finally ended up at ArbCom amendments. --Thomas B (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. Vassyana (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Abd
Per your suggestion, I've put a request at AE. I'm not sure what to do with the existing request for clairification - it should probably be closed (but then again, your fellow arbs might have opinions, who knows). So I'll leave it to you / the clerks to handle William M. Connolley (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)