Requests for clarification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Initiated by Abd (talk) at 21:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of this request, and acceptance of injunction against further comment by Abd on the current case, pending outcome of AE request.

Previous clarification of same point during the month prior, in which a motion was passed reaffirming and tightening the original text.

Statement by Abd

I am subject to an "MYOB" sanction, as amended:

3.3) Abd is indefinitely prohibited from discussing any dispute in which he is not an originating party. This includes, but is not limited to, article talk and user talk pages, the administrator noticeboards, and any formal or informal dispute resolution pages. He may, however, vote or comment at polls. Passed 9 to 0 with 2 abstentions by motion on 16:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It is apparent that ArbComm did not intend to prevent me from normal editing, which can, of course, involve some level of "dispute." The discussion leading up to that ban made it clear: my interventions in disputes was considered disruptive, though this had not been established by specific evidence, so the normal existence of examples helpful in clarifying what was considered "not my business" was absent. However, consistent with the discussion, I interpret "originating party" as referring to being involved in some dispute primarily, as distinct from happening across two or more editors arguing and intervening. There is a present situation would could appear as the latter. However, it was, in fact, the former, I was an involved editor, and would have, for example, been allowed to file an AN/I report myself, presumably. My edits and discussion of the case were not considered violations of the sanction, until I responded to an AN/I report filed by one editor complaining about another, very much about that case. The sanction is not specific to AN/I, and if it prohibited what I did at AN/I, it would also seem to prohibit everything else I was doing.

But Sandstein has interpreted the line as being crossed at AN/I, interpreting "originating party" very strictly, in a technical sense, instead of as substance, i.e., as "already involved through legitimate and permitted editing." This interpretation was asserted before, in prior RfAr/Clarification, I questioned it, but this was not addressed by the committee.

Hence my request here. In this case, I considered filing this request before posting to AN/I, but I take WP:IAR very seriously, balancing the necessities of the project with the disruption involved in possibly violating a sanction. I judged that an emergency existed, and that serious and permanent damage might be done, were I not to intervene. Confirming and supporting on-wiki harassment of an editor, resulting from rejected off-wiki extortion over WP content, through a block, can damage the reputation of Wikipedia, and I was willing to risk being blocked to prevent or at least warn against this damage.

I'm presenting links to the history of this incident in collapse. They are only here as an example of how the sanction might be ambiguous, not to involve ArbComm in a dispute without groundwork being laid. No action other than clarification is requested at this point. Sandstein has issued a "clarification" which means that I'm clearly enjoined from repetition of what triggered the AE report, whether that was a sanction violation or not. However, now, some days later, and with the injunction requiring all abstinence from comment on the situation outside these pages, whether as "originating party" or not, and because disruption, including extensive comment about me and my actions across many pages, from editors who should know better, is continuing, I may have no recourse left but to file an RfAr; the instant situation is being used as a claim (below) that the strict interpretation was necessary to avoid disruption, thus it may be necessary to examine that, and I have no means of doing so outside of an RfAr, otherwise I'd follow ordinary DR over my dispute. That's the result of an over-strict interpretation of the ban. I'll wait a while to see, though. Please understand that I prefer any decision to no decision. No decision leaves me wondering what the hell ArbComm intends. Some seem to believe that it was basically, "Go Away, Abd, this is our project, not yours." Fine. ArbComm can decide that. I agree, even, with half of it. At least I thought it was "our project." comment revised due to shifting situation --20:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

@SamJohnston: Since he is insisting so strongly here (and elsewhere around the wiki) I'll pull this part out of collapse. I urge it be read by anyone who wants to understand the situation better, though the deeper background remains described and linked in the collapse box. It seems to me that I was arrested and charged with jaywalking while someone was being mugged on the sidewalk. Definitely, I shouldn't jaywalk, in general, especially after being warned, but ... what if I crossed the street to prevent a mugging? And the police came running ... and arrested me as that notorious repeat jaywalker? And the mugged person is also arrested for "disturbing the peace," i.e., yelling and getting blood on the sidewalk? Besides, he was wanted for an unpaid traffic citation. The mugger is thanked for calling attention to these criminals. Okay, dramatic, but perhaps you get my point.

AN/I report section on off-wiki harassment: archived discussion permanent link, present state

There is more response to SamJohnston in the collapse box for responses to involved editors; however, his allegations are not relevant here, which is why the response is in collapse. The issue here is the interpretation of the sanction so that further unintentional violations do not take place, or, alternatively, AE actions are not filed on behavior not prohibited. The current incident is described only as an example where there was, certainly for me, or possibly for others, a difficulty of interpretation, and there have been opinions given by other editors, both ways.

I'm not asking ArbComm to decide whether or not I was justified under WP:IAR, because that would not clarify the sanction.

@TenOfAllTrades. I wrote TOAT to consider just what came to light in the AN report discussing his block of LirazSiri, and which led to another admin reversing his action. I describe the mail in the collapse box below.
@TenOfAllTrades. Again! Thanks, it's a brilliant plan to find consensus on Wikipedia: (1) Block/ban anyone you don't like. (2) Block/ban anyone who defends or supports anyone you don't like. (3) Ban anyone who objects to this, after all, they are disruptive and should instead be working on articles. (4) Done. Consensus. No more disruption. Except for all the socks, but we'll have better software soon. --Abd (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathsci: WP:RfAr/Abd-William M. Connolley#Mathsci reminded. Whom do you think you are fooling with "Uninvolved Mathsci"?

@EnricNaval: Yes. The ad-hoc clarification by admins at AE is legitimate, that is, it is proper for them to make an interpretation and enforce it, and to issue clarification, which ArbComm can accept or change, without any aspersions being cast on them. If they are involved, however, in some way, it might not be proper. That's not the case with Sandstein, I explicitly accepted his neutrality even when I knew that his proposed interpretation was, I believe, incorrect. If ArbComm takes no action here, then his interpretation stands and I'm bound by it. Which probably does mean that I'll stop editing Wikipedia as Abd, and if this is the result that arbitrators desire, they need do nothing. As to the instant case, if ArbComm wants to understand whether the strict interpretation being proposed was actually useful, it would have to look at that case, which could be arranged. I cannot arrange it because Sandstein has required me to avoid comment on that case outside of these pages. I could file an RfAr, though, I assume. Maybe I should, being prevented from acting short of that by the interpretation. If that were considered improper, ArbComm could easily move to site-ban me. But I'd be an "originating party," clearly. However, the present case doesn't define the sanction, and, even if the clarification by Sandstein et al stands, I'd probably have commented anyway, under the strict interpretation, because of IAR, and if a similar situation arises again (rare, I saw truly egregious abuse like I've never seen before, and I've seen a lot), I'd do it again. For better and for worse.

I'm still trying to figure out this wiki thing, when lots of editors here, part of a vanishing crew, seem to think they've got it down cold. They don't. It's failing. And lots of present and former editors, administrators, and arbitrators know it. I'm one of the few people actually trying to fix the system instead of imagining that the problem is Bad Editors and can be fixed by banning them. Has that worked?

Statement by Sandstein

This is related to the open enforcement request at WP:AE#Result concerning Abd. The question asked at some length above is whether my interpretation proposed there of "originating party" in Abd's restriction is correct. I appreciate any guidance by arbitrators on that matter. So as not to complicate matters further, I have asked Abd not to continue his current dispute in any venue before the request for arbitration enforcement is resolved.  Sandstein  21:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted in the AE thread that Abd has agreed to abide by the meaning of the sanction as explained below by Fut. Perf. until such time as ArbCom makes a different decision. Given this, I've also noted that I don't think that enforcement action remains required at this time, and I've no opinion about whether, under these circumstances, this clarification request remains necessary.  Sandstein  06:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SamJohnston

This is utterly ridiculous. Abd has been explicitly forbidden from engaging in this behaviour and is just off the back of a three month ban. The fact there is any question whatsoever that the original editing restriction was blatantly and repeatedly violated is incomprehensible to me. This editor deserves to be blocked - for me it's just a question of how long for. -- samj _in^out 04:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After a more thorough review it is absolutely clear that the intention of the editing restriction was to prevent exactly this type of situation from recurring. Attempting to "clarify" the restriction is either an attempt to work in a loophole that would effectively make it meaningless or an attempt to avoid requested enforcement (or both). In any case it's obviously wikilawyering and the exception should be interpreted narrowly (as it was intended). Conversely, "clarifying what was considered "not my business" was absent" with good reason - the restriction itself was intended to apply broadly to any debate about any topic where User:Abd was not an "originating party". I hope we don't have to clarify the meaning of "originating party" as seems fairly self explanatory - however User:Abd's claim of "originating party" status in the LirazSiri situation ought to be explicitly rejected (Update: and has been, here). -- samj _in^out 20:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:GoRight raises a good point about the interpretation of "originating party" (what we would typically call a "plaintiff") in that the scope should be *expanded* to include disputes where Abd is named (e.g. "defendant"). User:Future Perfect at Sunrise summarises it nicely below: The rule is simple: never comment about any conflict between two or more people who are not you. -- samj _in^out 03:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I am concerned my request for enforcement was improperly closed (at Abd's behest no less) in spite of protests from other users and at least one admin. Thus while that particular avenue may have been exhausted prematurely, the underlying issue remains unresolved. I reserve the right to pursue it through the usual channels pending the official outcome of this request for clarification - both as a victim of his personal attacks and of his incredible ability to sap energy and waste the time of all those who [are forced to] engage with him. I hope and trust the arbitrators will reaffirm and enforce Fut.Perf.'s interpretation, as if this were not the intent, what could it possibly have been?

I too initially believed Abd had agreed "to abide by the meaning of the restriction as explained [...] in an unambiguous and convincing manner" but he didn't even wait half an hour after this was acknowledged before he started off a new thread on his talk page directly disputing it, and kicked off a dispute with User:Future Perfect at Sunrise for good measure. He had also been emailing the editor he had been egging on the whole time (once again involving himself in a third-party dispute even while the enforcement request was being discussed) and continues to undermine the project and cause trouble.

P.S. Warning an active spammer/vandal that you'll nominate their article for deletion at AfD if they don't chill out is not "off-wiki harassment". This is off-wiki harassment. And despite all the usual hand waving, finger pointing, wikilawyering, etc. this clarification is the direct result of Abd turning routine cleanup after a career conflicted editor into a multi-venue, multi-editor dispute. Quoting JzG: "It's not clear this even would be a dispute without Abd's involvement. We have one WP:SPA making blatantly promotional COI edits, and one user making comments about it." -- samj _in^out 00:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Mathsci

When Abd had commented at length on WP:ANI concerning TurnKey Linux in a matter where he was not an originating party, I left a reminder there of his editing restrictions without further comment. Other editors, including Enric Naval (talk · contribs), also commented. At ANI Abd's reaction has been problematic: an attempt to smear us, because we commented in the Abd&WMC case - as if we like him are under some kind of sanction as a result of that case (see above for example). He has written similar remarks about JzG (talk · contribs). His posts on ANI seemed inflammatory and contrary to the ArbCom editing restrictions. Sandstein interpreted them this way at WP:AE and other users seem to agree there. Stephan Schulz (talk · contribs) has commented there and also subsequently been described as "involved" by Abd; he has been banned from Abd's talk page. Likewise Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) is now apparently "involved" and "in dispute" with Abd, according to Abd's talk page. Abd's escalation to a request for clarification and aggressive threats to SamJohnston [2] are a repetition of the wikilawyering and time-wasting already witnessed in early January, when the short phrase on mentors was removed. That he is periodically testing the limits of his editing restrictions in this tendentious way is not a good sign at all. Mathsci (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Abd made some kind of commitment to Sandstein, which he has just withdrawn, [3] a few hours after his block. He appears to be threatening to start an RfAr concerning FPaS's block. Hopefully this threat of further disruption and time-wasting can be nipped in the bud by either ArbCom or the community. Mathsci (talk)

Statement by (uninvolved, but Abd disagrees) Stephan Schulz

The aim of the remedy is to keep Abd from wasting the time of everybody involved with his tendency to wikilawyering and his prodigous output, while still allowing him access to WP:DR where it is really necessary. Therefore the exception should be interpreted narrowly, not widely. If he can enter any dispute simply by claiming to be involved, or by claiming that he wanted to file a DR request "soon", the restriction becomes useless. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fut.Perf.

I have offered the following clarification to Abd [4], and intend to enforce it as long as Arbcom doesn't provide a different decision:

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that "conflict in which you are an originating party" means the same as "conflict in which you have a prior interest". It doesn't mean that. It means there is a conflict that arose from a disagreement between A and B, and either A or B is you. Simple. In the present case, there was a conflict between A (SamJohnston) and B (LirzSiri). Neither A nor B is you, so it's off-limits. The rule is simple: never comment about any conflict between two or more people who are not you.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Abd has continued to breach the restriction on this very page, by continuing his comments about the dispute between LirazSiri and SamJohnston, in terms that amount to personal attacks [5], I have blocked him again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from TenOfAllTrades

I've just received an email regarding this dispute from Abd, attempting to intervene with me on behalf of LirizSiri (whom I recently blocked for attempted outing and threats to reveal personal information). While this may technically adhere to the terms of his restrictions, Abd is certainly evading their spirit. Frankly, I find Future Perfect's statement above to offer the simplest, clearest interpretation of the intent of Abd's sanctions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Observation regarding GoRight. I note that, as has been the pattern since at least Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley (in which these restrictions on Abd's conduct were originally established) GoRight is continuing to argue on Abd's behalf, and continuing to encourage Abd's misguided interest in counterproductively inserting himself into other editors' disputes. While I am unsure of what form such a remedy should take, perhaps it is time to consider an ArbCom resolution along the lines of "GoRight shall refrain from encouraging other editors to be wikilawyering nuisances." TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I have also previously, explicitly asked Abd not to email me. It is both telling and troubling that he felt the need to ignore my wishes to avoid off-wiki, off-the-record communcations with him in order to evade his editing restrictions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Observation from uninvolved Short Brigade Harvester Boris

Abd is testing the limits again. It's just what he does, like eating or breathing. Thus Arbcom has two choices: (i) you can resign yourselves to dealing with "clarifications" re Abd every few months for as long as he's on the project, or (ii) remove him from the project. It's up to the Arbs how you prefer to spend your time, but experience proves those are your only realistic alternatives. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I agree with Fut. Perf. and would endorse enforcement to that effect based on the wording of this restriction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As stated, I've endorsed the block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Enric Naval

The interpretation is inside the discretion given to admins in WP:AE. The goal of the restriction was keeping Abd out of disputes that he doesn't belong to (because he makes a mess out of those disputes). The interpretation is accomplishing this goal. The restriction has shown that it's effective by cutting short this latest dispute. The restriction has shown that it's useful in cutting drama and disruption before it gets out of hand. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before the edit that caused this last block, Abd had already tested the boundaries of his voluntary self-limitation. He commented in LirazSiri's page about the advice given to him, after saying that he wouldn't comment more on the dispute. It doesn't look like Abd is taking this seriously.

Abd is also making unwarranted analogies, like comparing himself with a man that is trying to rescue his spouse and children from a fire [6].

Please let admins at WP:AE take care of this and don't allow Abd to escalate this so he can grandstand about how he is being prevented from saving wikipedia from itself. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoRight

After FP posted his clarification on Abd's talk page, I took the opportunity to (hopefully obviously) play the role of devil's advocate with respect to this excessive focus on the word originating. To that end I posted a comment which took that focus to it's logical interpretation:

"Actually, if you want to focus only on the word "originating" the sanction actually bars Abd from participating in any DR which he did not personally initiate. This leads to the absurd situation where others can initiate DR against Abd and he is barred from even defending himself which indicates how ill-conceived this particular sanction actually is. Arbcom should restructure the entire sanction to implement something that is at least logically consistent. --GoRight (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)" Note: minor formatting changes have been applied.[reply]

FP then responded with a rather predictable stance:

"Wrong. It's not about having played an "originating" role in the DR procedure (e.g. having started a noticeboard thread), but about having played an originating role in the dispute that triggered the DR process. If Abd finds himself in a content disagreement with somebody, and then that other editor or a third party starts a noticeboard thread about Abd, he is of course an "originating party". Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)" Note: minor formatting changes have been applied.[reply]

At which point I was forced to again point out the logical fallacies in FP's thinking:

"You simply assert that you are correct. I simply assert that you are incorrect, FP. Who's right? Where has Arbcom indicated that your interpretation is correct?

Interestingly, with this post you now seem to be arguing Abd's point for him. If A, B, and C are all arguing about some particular issue and A files a DR action against B but explicitly excludes C how can you argue that C has NOT played an "originating role that triggered the DR process"? On what basis are you claiming that B is an originating party but C is not? Again, your original position stated above makes no logical sense. Either my interpretation as stated above is what was meant, which is clearly absurd and should be corrected, or I guess you are now in agreement with Abd's view and so he was correct all along. In either case your original interpretation is logically flawed. --GoRight (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)" Note: minor formatting changes have been applied.[reply]

In the end, while FP's interpretation may be convenient for himself and Abd's detractors in general, it makes literally no logical sense at all. At this point I would actually just observe that this sanction is causing significant disruption in its own right given that it (a) isn't clear what it actually means, and (b) isn't clear what it is actually trying to address. Given the level of disruption occurring here it may make more sense to either remove the sanction entirely or restructure it to address a specific identified behavior and word it in a clear and enforceable manner.

Lacking any such substantive changes I fear that we will find ourselves in a never ending cycle of discussion over the whole thing as Abd's detractors come up with even more inventive ways to misinterpret and misapply this ill-defined and perhaps ill-conceived sanction. --GoRight (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At some point in the above sequence of events FP had added more clarifications to Abd's talk page:

"More clarification for you. If editors A and B are having a content disagreement, and you see them edit-warring or engaging in other forms of questionable behaviour against each other, then the "conflict" in question is, and remains, a conflict between A and B, and only A and B are the originating parties. You may not then engage in any activity criticising, reporting on, or debating with, either A and B because of their behaviour in this dispute. About your interpretation that "If I see an editor violating a policy, and I ask that editor to stop, and the editor refuses and claims the actions are proper, we have a dispute": no, the intent of the sanction is precisely to stop you from spawning these kinds of follow-up meta-disputes. You may only approach an editor asking them to stop a questionable behaviour if that behaviour was already directed at yourself. Same for the issue of when to raise a matter at noticeboards: only if and when it relates to an original disagreement between you and some other editor about your own content editing, and/or if the other editor has explicitly taken the first step addressing you as their opponent in a disagreement. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

I then pointed out the logical flaws in this set of interpretations as well:

"@FP - Sorry, FP, but this interpretation is clearly absurd. It implies that if Abd observes an edit war in progress that he cannot take action to raise the issue at appropriate venues such as AN3. I see nothing in the sanction nor the discussion surrounding it that suggests that Arbcom intended to bar Abd from taking proper actions to protect the project. If you believe that they did, please indicate where and how they made that point clear. --GoRight (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

I can only assume, and please correct me if I am wrong, that the sanction was never intended to bar Abd from taking proper steps to protect the project from harm when he saw such harm actively occuring but this appears to be exactly what FP is asserting. If a vandal reinserts his garbage into an article after some other editor had previously reverted it, is it the intent of this sanction to actually bar Abd from confronting the vandal who is now in a dispute with another editor? The lengths to which this sanction can be misapplied are endless and disruptive to the project. --GoRight (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question for TOAT: What part of my statement above appears to be encouraging Abd to do anything at all? Please point me to the specific portions that make such encouragement so that I can correct them forthwith. It is not my intention to encourage any editor to take any particular action, other than to encourage Arbcom to pro-actively eliminate or restructure the sanction in question so as to clarify its intent and to render it more directly enforceable than it is in its current incarnation. It is my belief that doing so will minimize disruption on this issue moving forward.

Let me be clear and direct: I encourage Abd to continue to take his sanctions seriously and to continue to endeavor to adhere to them to the best of his ability given his best understanding thereof. --GoRight (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FP's current block of Abd: I have opened an AN report here. --GoRight (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned edits in sections written by others: I note the following [7] which was placed in a section written by Abd but was unsigned which makes it appear as though Abd wrote it. Perhaps the author or a clerk could move this comment into the author's own section to avoid confusion on this point? Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by typically disinterested Badger Drink

I'm not sure it's possible to clarify things any further with Mr. Abd, whether his obliviousness is innocent or deliberate, the end result is the same. He seems to have confused WP:IAR with WP:IGNOREALLSANCTIONS, which is mysteriously red-linked. And so we move on to the passive-aggressive threats of sockpuppeting (see the "@EnricNavel" section of Abd's most recent missive). I can only speak for myself, but I know I'm shivering in my boots - well done, Abd. "If I decide your sanctions are unfair, I'll totally start socking to get around them, and then what will you do? *swivels black leather chair to survey cityscape with a smirk, silently petting largely disinterested snow-white pussycat*". What a valuable, mature, level-headed contributor to our online encyclopedia! Badger Drink (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Spartaz

The tumbleweed seems to be blowing through the arbitrators# section. Does this mean:-

1. The arbs are all fed up with anything and everything Abd related and can't bring themselves to respond
2. The arbs are furiously arguing about the appropriate motion on their mailing list
3. The arbs are supremely indifferent
4. All of the above.

Thank you for your consideration. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

Abd's statement above is over 3,000 words. A bit of brevity would go a long way here. Guy (Help!) 19:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

---

Initiated by ~ R.T.G at 17:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• I will note it on the project page. I would not presume or pretend to know the full list of editors affected by the project.

Statement by RTG

Note:This request is about the Wikiproject Ireland Collaboration and, perhaps, how to move the naming debate out of it without discussing naming at all!

A discussion has arisen on the project about renaming it as Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Naming Debate. The collaboration project was created at the instruction of ARBCOM. Judging the front page of the project, its description of inspiration and goals, a major intention was to provide a collaboration area for loyalist/unionist and republican/nationalist to collaborate and consider disputes. Please clarify this. Is it the WikiProject Ireland Naming Debate or is it the collaboration project intended to concile culturally opposed editors as may be presumed by the projects front page?

The Naming Debates have overshadowed the collaboration project. Nothing else appears to exist on the projects discussion and these naming debates are impossibly long. They also concern editors mainly of republican/nationalist persuasions excepting for some contributions from neutral editors. The Naming Debates were a runaway train long before the collaboration project was created. As such a debate chokes the life out of all else on a project page, should such debates be moved prerequisite to a sub-project such as the now suggested Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Naming Debate only to provide notifications to the parent project detailing progression or events (such as voting) to prevent overshadowing other issues?

The Naming Debates, as per normal dispute progression, have not produced a collection of evidence outside of signed statements to ARBCOM and talk page threads, signed statements and conversational viewpoints. Should editors in a runaway train dispute be requested in good faith to produce a collaborative collection of verifiable evidence without signatures or conversational viewpoints? Would such a page of evidence spread a little grease on the path of neutral evaluation? Neutral editors have shown up often to the Naming Debates but rarely managed their intended contribution. Also, editors making signed statements have an invitation to be as convincing and therefore cunning as they see fit. Would an unsigned collection of consolidated and verified evidence be preferential in a dispute put to the wider community for evaluation, even if it were divided into sections preferable to particular disputees collective persuasions?

Please, tell me where you get lost and I will explain. I do not have a second level education to speak of.

Please consider my request on the talk page to use context definitions in the clarification request heading.

Thanks, ~ R.T.G 17:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Kirill, for any arbitrator reading this, by RTG

What about producing collaborating evidence, Ireland naming debates or other disputes, is it preferable to Arbcom? Would you consider at least requesting it of disputes? Without discarding the podium (everybody making signed statements or signed talk page comments), can there not be an alternative method whereby disputing parties gather together evidence much like a regular article detailing the whys and whats of disputed content? Is that not a good idea even if it were never taken advantage of? I think that it would be taken advantage of if Arbcom regularly suggested it. For the purpose of initiating collaboration between content diputees with cultural differences, it would be like requesting an Ireland collaboration project except with less scope for verbal dihorrea in the findings and more prominence for facts which are found to be mistaken or misleading. Every project has a front page with information, so should every dispute which merits the attention of Arbcom. Disputees will often refuse to participate in such a way but where then do neutral editors come in? Right there. They run the show. It doesn't seem as busy on Arbcom as a year or more ago but I am sure you still have some pile-ups in the works. I would like very much to see a non-statement oriented page of evidence coming from the Ireland naming case, purely for adequate reference purposes. They certainly wont do it now, but maybe if a long time ago Arbcom had suggested it to them... ~ R.T.G 14:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Statement by Scolaire

To clarify, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration was not created at the instruction of ArbCom, or as a consequence of the Ireland article names case. It was created by Gnevin on 31 October 2008 to - believe it or not - improve collaboration. The Ireland naming disdcussion moved there on 4 February 2009. --Scolaire (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recused - I have participated in the Ireland naming content dispute as an editor. Steve Smith (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Although the creation of the Ireland Collaboration WikiProject was a consequence of the Ireland article names case, nothing in the decision requires that the project fulfill any particular role. As far as I'm concerned, the community is free to determine what, if anything, it wishes to do with the project going forward. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure what we're being asked to do here. The WikiProject, no matter how it got started seems to aim for collaboration, as is typical of WikiProjects. What the community decides to do with it and how the community participates in it is really up to them. If you're suggesting that the project is being used to continue the naming debate, I'd suggest that you simply ignore it as its been made clear that the subject will not be reopened at this time. Shell ^babelfish 16:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Use WikiProjects for what they're meant--improving the articles without all the bickering and POV-pushing that results in a never-ending stream of Ireland related issues being brought to arbcom. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by Tenmei (talk) at 20:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Tenmei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• John Carter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) -- notice/diff
• Jmh649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- notice/diff
• Kraftlos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- notice/diff
• Leujohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- notice/diff
• McDoobAU93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- notice/diff
• Robofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- notice/diff
• Taivo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- notice/diff

Statement by Tenmei

ArbCom decisions in December set in motion a slow process which now calls for further ArbCom action. Relevant excerpts from amended remedies include:

1.1) Tenmei is restricted as follows:

(A) Tenmei is topic-banned from Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty for a period of six months, to begin when a mentor is located and approved by the Committee. He is permitted to comment on the talkpage, so long as he does so in a civil fashion .... (underline emphasis added)

Passed 10 to 0, 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC), amended as indicated with italics 8 to 0, 02:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

3.1) Tenmei shall be assigned is required to have one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary. While Tenmei is without a mentor, Tenmei is prohibited from contributing except for the purpose of communicating with potential mentors ....

Passed 10 to 0, 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC), amended as indicated with italics 8 to 0, 02:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

3.2) The mentor must be publicly identified, and willing to make themselves available for other editors to contact them publicly or privately.

Passed 8 to 0, 02:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom remedies required that I locate a mentor or mentors. This is a list of volunteers:

ArbCom "approval" or confirmation is anticipated.

[29 words]

A. No procedure tells me how to elicit ArbCom "approval" or confirmation. If mailing the list to ArbCom members individually and posting the list at WP:AC/CN is sufficient, good. If not, what alternative action is preferred?

[35/64 words]

B. No protocols explain how these mentors will know that he/she has been approved or confirmed. If it is sufficient for someone to post "approved" after each name listed at WP:AC/CN or here, good. If not, what alternative action is preferred?

[40/106 words]

C. Nothing guides me in knowing when I may re-commence normal editing. If "A" is sufficient or if "B" is required, good. If not, what alternative action is preferred?

[28/134 words]

D. If this is not the correct venue to address these matters, what venue is preferred?

[15/149 words]

Response to Steve Smith

Each name is presented for individual confirmation as an independent mentor. They will function as co-mentors in the flexible manner which appears to be playing out amongst those who are working with Mattisse. Some have agreed to participate only on condition that he/she is part of a group, e.g.,

• John Carter -- "would be happiest if there were others involved as well"
• Taivo -- "willing to participate in a mentorship committee if ArbCom deems me acceptable. I would not be willing to be a solo mentor, but as part of a committee I would be willing.".

Anticipating time constraints and other burdens, McDoobAU93 asked specifically, "How available will ... co-mentors need to be?" My response summarizes a fundamental assumption: "I anticipate that everyone's availability will vary and that the interest in issues which arise will also vary. To the extent that I can exert control over any situation, I project that no issue involving me will be limited or burdened with time constraints. I predict that, in general, only one or two at any one time will be involved in any one issue/dispute/event/topic, etc."

Another relevant factor is suggested by threads at Wikipedia talk:Mentorship: I was alarmed to read about situations in which mentors confronted role-related abuse; and I won't be alone in defending those whose only motivation is benevolent.

In the planning period, I learned tangentially from teachable moments which arose as these mentors worked with each other, reinforcing a comment or observation with different words or a slightly different emphasis.

The group also encompasses non-public advisors who remain unidentified. In the preliminary period of organizing, an anonymous leader was pivotal in the process of distilling a plan drafted to be less than 200 words; and in this context, Taivo's comments about counting words were rephrased and refocused by Leujohn. Although unconventional in this ArbCom setting, the word counting illustrates an arguably constructive experiment already initiated by the Mentorship Committee. --Tenmei (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Coren

John Carter is the only one of us with wiki-mentoring experience. He has been off-wiki since late December; and it is unlikely that he will be able to add his voice here. A brief note from SatuSuro here suggests that computer-hardware problems may explain and excuse this absence. I urge confirmation or "approval" as a mentor in anticipation of his return.

You will know that John Carter is one of Mattisse's mentors. His early advice was informed by what seemed to have worked well in that unique setting. For example, User talk:Tenmei/Sub-page Alerts and User:Tenmei/Sub-page Alerts were created as a result of his suggestions.

John Carter's early involvement doubtless influenced others in their willingness to join my mentorship group. For example, when Taivo agreed to join, he wrote, " ... if I read correctly, John Carter has volunteered to be a part. He is a very good editor and will be a good member of the mentorship committee." --Tenmei (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the contexts of RogerDavies' question and Risker's question below, it seems timely to recite something Coren explained in an e-mail: "Actually, mentorship is exactly what it says on the tin: good counsel ... [from] experienced editor[s] familiar with the intricacies of how Wikipedia works." --Tenmei (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to RogerDavies

How this will work has been made explicit -- expressly provided for by ArbCom or created in order to facilitate the implied Tang Dynasty objectives. I cast a wide net as part of an outside-the-box search for a cohort of co-mentors. My best interests are fulfilled only if their investments of time and thought are made easy and effective.

Principles. In circumstances which are impossible to foretell, the analysis of mentors functioning in a monitor-like role will be informed by principles adduced in the Tang Dynasty case; that is, ensuring the purpose of creating "a high-quality free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among editors." (See Principle 1, "Purpose of Wikipedia") This means that "the reliability and accuracy of our content is extremely important ..., requir[ing] that article content that is challenged or is likely to be challenged must be attributed to a published reliable source supporting the information presented." (Principle 3, "Reliability and verifiability of sources") In the same way that "[i]t is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors," neither is this an arguable burden of the mentors group. (See Principle 5, "Role of the Arbitration Committee")

Remedies. Consistent with the remedies ArbCom has mandated, the mentors are "publicly identified, and willing to make themselves available for other editors to contact them publicly or privately." (See Remedy 3.2, "Tenmei Restricted") For redundant clarity, ArbCom has said the same thing in different words -- that "[e]ditors who come into conflict with Tenmei are advised to contact the mentor(s) either publicly or via email." (See Remedy 9, "Editors who come into conflict") These complementary remedies mirror a unique principle -- that "[e]ditors who encounter difficulties in communicating with others on-wiki are advised to seek help ... in presenting their thoughts clearly, particularly when disputes arise or when dispute resolution is sought"; and "[t]his particularly applies to editors whose native language may not be English." (See Principle 4, "Non-English language sources")

Non-English language. Preliminary decisions in Tang Dynasty inform expectations about which may become problematic in the future, e.g.,

• "... Some of the issues may be a bit complicated and/or require a bit of expert assistance, but in the scheme of things that can be said about quite a large portion of the topics we cover. I'd encourage ... seek[ing] out the input of one or more uninvolved Chinese-speaking editors." — Vassyana 05:49, 24 March 2009
• "Some input from a Chinese-speaking administrator or experienced editor on the sourcing/verifiability and related issues might be helpful here." — Newyorkbrad 03:48, 19 March 2009
• "I'm going to second that request from an uninvolved Chinese-literate editor; it does appear that any case would revolve around the sources, and a good interpretation of them appears indispensable. — Coren 00:40, 20 March 2009
• "I think Wikisource can be of assistance here as a scratch pad to record the sources [in Chinese] and translations. Wikisource has an Author page ... [and t]here are no limitations on the amount of detail that can be recorded on Wikisource Author pages ... [and] if no public domain translation is available, a collaborative translation can be created on English Wikisource." — John Vandenberg 00:20, 26 March 2009
• "I see that we are stuck here. Has any Chinese-speaking editor who would help been found?" — FayssalF 18:46, 25 March 2009

Leujohn is Chinese, living in Hong Kong; and if he should be unavailable, Penwhale has agreed here to assist the mentors as needed. An anonymous Korean-literate editor has agreed to assist the mentors if asked to do so. In addition, other East Asian language resources will be developed over the coming weeks, so that the potential range of back-up sought by the mentors will have depth.

Communciation. The Mentorship Committee exists to help ameliorate communication-problems and/or to mitigate communication-barriers, e.g.,

• "When an editor's input is consistently unclear or difficult to follow, the merits of his or her position may not be fully understood by those reading the communication."
• "An editor's failure to communicate concerns with sufficient clarity, conciseness and succinctness, or with insufficient attention to detail, or failure to focus on the topic being discussed, can impede both collaborative editing and dispute resolution."

To this end, ArbCom-approved "public" mentors will be available to help editors recognise communication-related issues and to encourage "steps to address the problems." (See Principle 6, "Communication").

From time to time, Nihonjoe's background in East Asian matters may be helpful for the mentors. Taivo's professional and scholarly background in language and linguistics may prove to be useful to the mentors. Other area-related or subject-related expertise can be developed when the mentors perceive the need for other context-related back-up.

Working venues. As a result of John Carter's suggestions (developed from what seemed effective or useful in Mattisse's mentoring process), the following a bold orange Notice/navagation bar was posted near the top of the page at User talk:Tenmei:

Mentorship Committee – for issues requiring mentors' involvement, → → → → click HERE

This notice bar links to User talk:Tenmei/Sub-page Alerts. The "public" mentors are identified on this "Alerts" page. Links to their talk pages and links to e-mail are posted. Instructions about how to use this alternate venue are provided; and a suggested format is offered for those who may want to make use of it. Principles and remedies adduced in Tang Dynasty are made specific and tangible in this on-wiki venue.

In addition, private e-mail communication between members of the Mentorship Committee is enhanced by off-wiki mentoring sites which have been established at Google Groups, Google Docs and Google Wave.

Other mentors or advisors. If other "public" mentors are to be added, the names can be submitted for ArbCom confirmation. in a manner similar to this thread Additional advisors or non-public mentors will be added in a manner which the Mentorship Committee deems appropriate and convenient. Such additional names will be made public or kept confidential depending on individual preferences.

WP:TL;DR. If this response is deemed too long, I am ready to strike any parts which are considered superfluous or unwanted. I prepared this without consulting anyone else; and therefore, I remain solely responsible for any flaws. --Tenmei (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Risker

Risker's enquiry strays outside the scope of A + B + C; and in this way, it becomes like a bridge too far.

A. ArbCom told me to locate a mentor or mentors.

Yes — I did just that.

B. ArbCom explained that Tenmei is "required to have one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary."

Yes — the volunteers are ready to do just that.

C. Risker's questions are like bait-and-switch.

No — paraphrasing Coren's words: "... mentorship is exactly what it says on the tin: good counsel ... [from] experienced editor[s] familiar with the intricacies of how Wikipedia works."

In this circumstance, I feel awkwardly compelled to intervene to protect and preserve those who I have asked to help me as mentors. Is it not seemly for me to demonstrate in this way that I value them?

What respects volunteers? This confirmation process can be moved forward by repeating a fundamental axiom: "My best interests are fulfilled only if these volunteers' investments of time and thought are made easy and effective." Risker's questions are not easy; and whatever time volunteers might invest in answering would likely produce little more than ineffective guesswork.

In part, mentorship was proposed by ArbCom as a remedy because, "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". In contrast, the wide-ranging search for volunteers ensured that a broad range of tools are available.

In part, the group-structure was necessitated by the problems which flow from the ArbCom neologism; and this explains why my Mentorship Committee is comprised of (a) "mentors", as described at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Involuntary mentorship; and (b) "mentors", as conventionally understood and described at Mentorship.

No one has volunteered to investigate the conceptual flaws in ArbCom's terminology nor in devising flexible mentoring group structures; rather, each has expressed a willingness to invest a limited amount of time in helping me improve how I participate in our encyclopedia-building project. I construe my responsibilities to "keep my eye on the ball" -- which means paying attention to a changing focal point which encompasses each person’s expectation of what the other expects him to expect to be expected to do.

What is the main thing? At User talk:FloNight#Tenmei's mentor, the main objective was clarified: "... a mentor is like a coach mostly." In this explicit context, words from the userpage of Kraftlos offer a succinct response to Risker's three questions and any corollaries:

The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.

In June 2009, FloNight restated ArbCom's objectives:

A. [A]rbitration requires that you work with one or more users to help you communicate better and gain a better understanding of how to work through editing disputes.

B. Speaking on behalf of the members of the Committee that I directly talked with about your participation in the dispute and the case, I say that we very much do appreciate that you have legitimate concerns and questions.

C. The main issue continues to be that your style of communication is a barrier to you working collaboratively with other people.

D. You need to focus on changing the things that you can change.

E. [O]ur interest is not in criticizing you but finding ways to enable you to better edit the encyclopedia. There is a general view that when you get into editing conflicts that your communication style makes it difficult for you to work through the issue. Our goal is to assist you in working that problem.

Now is the time to let these volunteer mentors get to work.

Reinventing the wheel. As FloNight explained in June 2009, "... if mentors see a new problem they can make it clear to him that they will tell us so that we can promptly handle it. This approach usually works best." As succinctly expressed by SMcCandlish here, " ...this is encyclopedia-bulding project, not an experiment in virtual governance ...."

WP:TL;DR. If this response is deemed too long, I am ready to strike any parts which are considered superfluous or unwanted. I prepared this without consulting anyone else; and therefore, I remain solely responsible for any flaws. --Tenmei (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

As requested by Tenmei I will provide some oversight over his editing. I hope that this will allow everyone to get back to what we are here for, writing an encyclopedia.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC) (jmh649)[reply]

I as well have volunteered to provide some oversight. Arbcom said that he is topic banned, does that mean he can contribute to those areas while under oversight, or does it simply mean he needs to be observed in all his edits? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to help Tenmei learn to be concise when posting comments. Based on my observations, he has a tendency to be excessively wordy in his posts, which in turn lends itself to people having a tl;dr reaction to his posts. As long as there are several people on this "mentorship committee", I'm willing to help out. I have a lot of other things I do here, and I'd like this to have only a small impact on that. I think Tenmei can learn and improve (and he has in many ways), so hopefully this mentorship will be deemed unnecessary at some future point. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tenmei has not made an article edit for three months [8] this after he was consistently making a thousand a month. I would recommend he resume editing slowly so that we may have time to adjust or edit a different topic areas. Will be happy to look at concerns. I do not believe a formal process is required.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm continuing to provide Tenmei with advice by email as I had offered here. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Tenmei, is it your plan for all of these people to be your mentors, or are you presenting a range of options in the hopes that ArbCom will designate which are acceptable? As well, your concision is appreciated, but there is no need to post word counts along with each of your comments. Steve Smith (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This looks to be at least worth a shot. Steve Smith (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be helpful if the editors put forward as proposed mentors would chime in here before any decision is made; but I'll point out that a return to editing suitably assisted is a desirable outcome and would be looked upon favorably. — Coren ^(talk) 00:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I also welcome suggestions from the suggested mentors about how this will work in practise.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I note the comments of a few of the editors approached to act as mentors. I would like to know (a) how you will address differences amongst yourselves (a situation we have encountered in other mentoring situations); (b) what range of actions you are willing to undertake as individuals and as a group; (c) how the "group" will work when Tenmei is also receiving private advice from individuals not specifically included in the group of mentors. In answer to the question above, Tenmei's six-month topic ban on the subject of Tang Dynasty begins once the mentorship is approved. Risker (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by Rannpháirtí anaithnid at 19:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Rannpháirtí anaithnid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Notice has been posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. Membership as follows:

• Masem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (Moderator)
• Xavexgoem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (Moderator)
• SebastianHelm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• HighKing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bastun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Evertype (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nuclare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BritishWatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Rockpocket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ddstretch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• PhilKnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Edokter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Red King (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jeanne boleyn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Waggers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mooretwin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MusicInTheHouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Grollum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Blue-Haired Lawyer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ClemMcGann (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RashersTierney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• FlyingToaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lucian Sunday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Redking7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bogger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fmph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Footyfanatic3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ww2censor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Daicaregos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scolaire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cuchullain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sswonk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Valenciano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sir Ophiuchus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Snappy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Rannpháirtí anaithnid

The above case proposed four remedies to the dispute over how to refer to the island of Ireland and the state of Ireland on Wikipedia. The first of these were:

The community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. The purpose of this discussion shall be to develop reasonably agreed-upon procedures for resolving this issue, without further disputes or rancor as to the fairness of the procedures used. Editors are asked to approach this discussion with an open mind and without emphasis on prior discussions that failed to reach agreement.

That was discussion was opened at a designated centralised location. It was undertaken in good faith but failed to reach a decision. A back-up procedure was as follows (2nd remedy):

If the discussion convened under the terms of Remedy #1 does not result in a reasonable degree of agreement on a procedure within 14 days, then the Arbitration Committee shall designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure.

That back-up procedure was initiated. Over the subsequent months, consensus was unattainable among the participants of the process on the matter of the titles of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland articles. In light of that, a consensus decision was reached to hold a community wide vote on that matter (inspired by the Gdańsk/Danzig vote). That vote took place. The outcome was to have the articles on the state at Republic of Ireland and the articles on the island at Ireland (with a disambiguation page at Ireland (disambiguation)). The result was confirmed by the moderating administrator.

Subsequent to that vote, the outstanding matters related to how to refer to Ireland/Republic of Ireland in other places (e.g. in articles). Agreement was reach on those matters by consensus. The result of that consensus has been added to the Ireland manual of style.

The titles/locations of those articles has been stable since the vote took place (September). The style guidelines have also been stable since their addition (December) and have been upheld on article discussion pages independent of it.

The final remedy related to the binding nature of the process:

Once the procedures discussed in Remedy #1 (and, if necessary, Remedy #2) are implemented, no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.

Since the result of the vote became there was a substantial drop off in participation in the process and several editors formally withdrew from the process. Owing to this, some say that because of the process became derailed and thus is non-binding/non-completeable. Can we please have confirmation on the following:

• Have all of the procedures outlined in the request for arbitration have been fulfilled?
• Are the outcomes of the procedures now binding for the period outlined in Remedy 4?
• Is the process arising from this request for arbitration now complete?

-- RA (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rockpocket

I'd simply like to affirm Rannpháirtí anaithnid's request, above. We are in a period of relative calm, which probably reflects a de facto appreciation that the community consensus has been established even if many are unwilling to acknowledge it. Nevertheless, it would be helpful for ArbCom to officially sign off on this process, if only to preempt the inevitable arguments - at some point in the future - about when this debate is permitted to be rehashed. Rockpocket 02:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for further clarification by SarekOfVulcan

Assuming that there is a moratorium on "page move discussions", as stated below by Coren, does that further imply that there's a two-year moratorium on arguing that the poll was invalid/rigged/not binding/etc., and are persistent attempts to claim the above blockable under this decision? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HighKing

Apologies that this is a bit late posting here. I didn't realize that it was allowed. Hopefully the committee members that have already posted below will take the time to read this. Agree that we have a period of relative calm, but it is procedurally incorrect to state that the process can be signed off, and that all procedures have been followed. The key timeline points are:

• Last 10 years - multiple edit warring and hundreds of pages of discussions and debates, mostly heated, around the name of the article dealing with the sovereign state named Ireland - i.e. the article Republic of Ireland.
• August 2008 - first time a proposal involving multiple articles created and got people talking. Followed up with support from both sides after a compromise package initiated by Mooretwin.
• On 4th Jan 2009, Arbcom issued a ruling. It simply states The community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles.. (my emphasis) Note that Arbcom specifically linked to the article on the island, not the article dealing with the sovereign state. Note that Arbcom states "and related articles" indicating that a multi-article agreement is being sought.
• A vote was proposed around Feb/March 2009 - note it was multiple articles, etc.
• It was questioned and re-clarified in March 2009 that the process scope was multiple articles according to the wording of the Arbcom decision.
• Lots of discussions, and variations on how to deal with this: March 2009 April 2009
• In April, User:PhilKnight analyses and summarizes progress and states At first sight, we can deduce that the following options have too much opposition: Ireland as state and Ireland as island AND state (basically a merge). Further, the option Republic of Ireland is a tie and cannot be considered as having consensus.
• Towards the end of June, Masem suggested a comprehensive multi-article solution. Due to opposition he states

Since I've got the major opinions of the parties involved, and the "oppose" positions are pretty clearly not a position that can be made compatible (two different directions in which to name the 26-county state), I will consider that any chance of consensus happening to be beyond measure. In otherwords, any attempt to achieve normal, discussion-driven consensus on this matter is not going to happen in the immediate future. This means that polling is our next best solution. Unless anyone has anything contrary to this to offer, I will propose a revised schedule for the STV in a day or so (it won't start Sunday) and we will go from there. --MASEM (t) 00:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the introduction of the idea of polling.

• Sometime after between this proposal and the poll opening in August, after more than 6 months of work and at a time when most editors were on holidays or away, the entire process turned into the same old single-issue that we'd played out 100's of times before. Many of us took the view that this poll was just one part of a bigger process. Many of us believed that the comprehensive agreement that had been nearly agreed many times over the preceeding months would now be agreed point-by-point. Unfortunately, the flaw was the "winners" of the first poll had no incentive to compromise (with the risk that a concession at this point might not result in a concenssion in their favour later on).
• Even immediately after the poll opened, the question What happens in 2 years time was asked, and it was never seen as a locked-in result. In fact, at this stage, people were beginning to realize that voting on single-issue-at-a-time would not work, as there was no incentive
• Just before the poll closed, it was acknowledged that many more steps were required in the process.
• Immediate after the poll closed this was further demonstrated by Masem's comments announcing the vote result where he also acknowleged that the result of the vote may not be binding.

Today, 6 months after the process fell apart, we have a small number of editors trying to rewrite the history and context of this issue, and attempting to turn the original Arbcom process into validation of the time-worn majority imposed single-issue of the name of the article Republic of Ireland. This is wrong, and should be actively discouraged by Arbcom members as failing to develop comprehensive procedures to deal with the larger issue. A factual summary:

• The Arbcom remedies specifically states The community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. This has not been done. A procedure including the article Ireland has not been discussed, and only one related article - Republic of Ireland was included in a vote, settled by the same-old British majority that keeps the article at this title. Indeed the majority-vote situation is the reason why we ended up at Arbcom in the first place. After the vote, no procedures were agreed as the process broke down due to multiple disagreements related to the vote.

Finally, I understand and accept that this issue is old and that most people are fed up with it. But that is no excuse for threatening sanctions against editors for being "argumentative" for pointing out that the Arbcom request has not been fulfilled. The reason the process failed was because over a very short period of time, with input from only a small handful of editors, there was a movement away from a multi-article comprehensive package solution to a single-issue majority vote with no connection to the "bigger picture". So we've learned something. I don't believe there's anything to be gained by rewriting history and making out that this single-issue majority vote was what Arbcom charged the community with doing. I also believe that more can be learned and gained by understanding where the process went off the rails. Sheer mental exhaustion and perhaps more than a modicum of reflection have kept things quiet since September, and I question why some editors have now tried to impose the result of the poll as the Arbcom sanctioned result, complete with lock-in, when it is pretty clear that we're nowhere near reaching an agreement covering multiple articles as instructed by Arbcom. I believe that there's everything to be gained if Arbcom instruct the community to revisit this process sometime in the near future and to continue to work on creating a collaborative solution. --HighKing (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Arbcom Members who have voted

I'd like to ask the Arbcom members to discuss in a little more detail the motion The Arbitration Committee notes that the conditions put forward by remedies during the Ireland article names arbitration case were fulfilled to the Committee's satisfaction with specific emphasis on explaining which specific conditions were fulfilled to the Committee's satisfaction. Because I have followed the process closely, and I'm at a total loss how this decision has been reached. I've outlined above what the remedies were, and what has been achieved, and the gap between. Can someone please help me understand why the Committee believes that where we've ended up is satisfactory? All I can see is the Committee taking this opportunity to sweep the issue under the carpet with vague threats of silencing or sanctioning anyone who doesn't go along with it. --HighKing (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello?

Anyone care to respond please? Can someone from the Arbcom Committee discuss this please? The process and remedies have not been fulfilled, yet the Committee appear to have decided that an aborted partially fulfilled process where the result was skewed by a British majority POV on a single issue of naming a single article. There is no record of the Committee examining and agreeing that the process was fulfilled, and there is no record of the Committee matching the result against the remedies. Can the Committee examine each remedy, and comment on the fulfillment of each please? --HighKing (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Evertype

I am the one who started the arbitration process. It has failed. I quit the collaboration project because of the bad faith on the part of many participants, and in particular because of the lack of effective leadership in arbitration from Masem.

And I no longer edit Ireland-related articles. In fact, I edit the Wikipedia a lot less than I used to.

Well, done, Arbitration Committee, for doing nothing positive, or pro-active, or helpful. I hope you appoint better arbitrators in 2011. -- Evertype·✆ 15:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay

I applaud Arbcom's 2-year freeze on the naming issue. The dispute was becoming a headache & needed a time-out. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• While I do not think this has been formalized by motion, the committee did examine the result of the procedure as outline and endorsed the conclusion of the panel as satisfactory. Specifically, the procedures have been fulfilled, they are binding per remedy 4, and the committee now considers the matter to be closed. In practice, this means that the two year moratorium on further page move discussions is in force until September 18 2011. — Coren ^(talk) 20:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've posted two motions to clarify the matter "officially". — Coren ^(talk) 03:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Recusing due to administrative actions I have taken in this area, but I generally agree with Coren. SirFozzie (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Recused as I voted in the Ireland naming poll. Steve Smith (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Try the method used for settling this sort of thing in WP:ARBMAC2 — Rlevse • Talk • 22:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not convinced the troubles with The Troubles, Ireland naming, etc have been solved. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to agree with Coren, everything seems to have been handled properly and the conditions fulfilled. If someone is still arguing or editing disruptively after having been informed of the decision then the community can deal with that disruption as they see fit. Shell ^babelfish 03:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

1) The Arbitration Committee notes that the conditions put forward by remedies during the Ireland article names arbitration case were fulfilled to the Committee's satisfaction and that, as a consequence, remedy 4 ("[...] no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.") is in force until September 18, 2011.

(There being 16 arbitrators, four of whom are inactive and two others are recused, the majority is 6) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enacted ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. In particular, further disruptive editing or argumentation is very much unwelcome and can be brought to Arbitration Enforcement or to other community venues. — Coren ^(talk) 03:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Coren Shell ^babelfish 08:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Coren KnightLago (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Risker (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Mailer Diablo 13:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

1. Recuse. Steve Smith (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Recused due to involvement in the area. SirFozzie (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2) While the related matter of how to refer to Ireland/Republic of Ireland in other places (such as articles) is not directly covered by the aforementioned remedies, the Committee takes notes of the existence of a de facto consensus on the matter owing to the stability of the Ireland manual of style and enjoins the community to avoid needlessly rehashing the disputes.

(There being 16 arbitrators, four of whom are inactive and one of whom is recused, the majority is 6) ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enacted ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. Given the potential for acrimony and the hard-won current stability, I for one would view disruption in this area with a very poor light. It might be wisest to create a structure similar to that used to fixate the naming of the articles rather than dispute endlessly on talk pages if there remains serious concerns. — Coren ^(talk) 03:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Settling the large dispute wasn't license to continue the arguments in other places. Shell ^babelfish 08:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. KnightLago (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 04:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Risker (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. Mailer Diablo 13:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. See my post of a few minutes ago about the endless issues of Ireland related issues coming to arbcom. In this motion the emphasis is on "enjoins the community to avoid needlessly rehashing the disputes". To quote Rodney King with a pertinent twist "Can the editors in the Ireland topics all get along?" — Rlevse • Talk • 03:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

1. Recuse. Steve Smith (talk) 02:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Recused due to prior involvement in the area. SirFozzie (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]