Requests for clarification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Initiated by  Sandstein  at 07:11, 30 April 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) (initiator)
• Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (notified)
• Pmanderson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified)
• Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified)
• Admins involved in the AE discussion: notified via a link to this request in the discussion.

Statement by Sandstein

I make this request in my capacity as an admin working at WP:AE.

• In June 2009, the Committee banned Pmanderson from editing "style and editing guidelines relating to the linking or unlinking of dates" for a year (Wikipedia:RFAR/DDL#Pmanderson topic banned).
• On 17 August 2009, the Committee passed a motion which does not appear to have changed the scope of Pmanderson's ban.
• On 28 August 2009, as a result of this AE thread, Shell Kinney (then not yet an arbitrator) added the following to the case page's sanction log: "Pmanderson (talk · contribs) restriction re-widened to include the pages and talk pages of all MOS and style guidelines due to continuing disruption." Nobody appears to have objected to this.
• In April 2010, Tony1 requested the enforcement of this widened ban after Pmanderson appeared to have violated it.

Administrators now disagree at WP:AE#Result concerning Pmanderson about whether Shell Kinney's widening of the ban should be enforced. Please advise about how to proceed.  Sandstein  07:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Carcharoth

Thanks for the clarification. Your diff shows that the motion did indeed restrict the scope of Pmanderson's topic ban, but that this amendment was recorded in such a way (by leaving the 14 June 2009 timestamps intact) as to make the reader believe that the amended version was the one originally passed. I agree that this is most unhelpful and that the clerks should consider establishing a better practice for the recording of amendments.

With respect to your proposal at AE that Pmanderson just agree to the widened ban, I am not sure that this would resolve the problem, because he could at any time withdraw such an agreement, and then we would be back to the same question under discussion here: which are the binding restrictions on Pmanderson?  Sandstein  10:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pmanderson

This was a piece of inadvertence on my part; if I had realized, as I ought to have done, that the discussion linked to from WT:NOR involved an active MOS page (as well as some MOS regulars), I would not have commented - certainly not before Shell's expanded sanction expires a couple of months from now, and probably not then.

I will not now do so; therefore, if bans are preventative rather than punitive, it has done its work. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Carcharoth: It is User:Tony1 who has taken an uncharacteristic interest in Talk:Catholic Church, even more than Ohconfucius; but most of the rest of your comment will apply to both of them. The substance of his effort to gather mud from a five-month-old edit dispute was answered (by a third party) [1] . Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ohconfucius

Arbs should evaluate whether the above statement is sincere and credible in light of previous comments which appear to strongly indicate that he was attempting to argue his way out of a topic ban extension based on a technicality rather than out of genuine contrition for his "inadvertance". Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Carcharoth was right to point out my indiscretions in referring to Pmanderson via nick-names. I have apologised to them both for this and will not do it again.

  The MoS pages themselves have been stable. The occasional tension on MOS, MOSNUM and MOSLINK talk pages is not in a way that is damaging to the project. I will do more to exercise restraint and encourage calm at all times on these pagers. I hope this is a satisfactory response to your concerns. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carcharoth

Since my previous comment (at arbitration enforcement) has been raised recently (at the current WP:AE thread), and it concerned User:Ohconfucius, I would like the arbitrators to consider that previous comment I made, along with recent behaviour by Ohconfucius, and to ascertain whether his combative approach is helping here, and whether a widening of the topic ban on Ohconfucius to cover all MOS and style pages (similar to the widening applied to Pmanderson) will help here.

My comment, back in August 2009, was here, and can be read in full context here in the arbitration enforcement thread closed by Shell (before she was an arbitrator). Back then, I pointed out that Ohconfucius had, with this edit, referred to Pmanderson as "the style anarchist Pam Anderson". I made the case that this was a deliberate insult by Ohconfucius, but nothing was done at the time, possibly because it was later struck by Ohconfucius. Given this, and noticing the WP:AE thread, I decided to take a closer look at Ohconfucius's conduct here.

From what I can see, Ohconfucius sees Pmanderson as a "MOS style" opponent and pushes back against him whenever he can, as witnessed by the edits here (objecting to the "words to watch" edits due to having that page on his watchlist) and here (complaining about Pmanderson on an unrelated topic and for some reason trying to link it to the enforcement request). I can't see any previous involvement that Ohconfucius has had with the Catholic Church topic. I would suggest asking Ohconfucius why he has suddenly taken an interest in Pmanderson's editing on the Catholic Church topic.

As for recent combative behaviour by Ohconfucius, there are several examples (all from the last two weeks): here (a strike-out of unnecessary commentary, which doesn't really undo the harm done by making such comments); another insulting of Pmanderson here (using the nickname "Mandy" that Pmanderson has previously objected to - see here); using the word hogwash in an edit summary; telling another editor they need to grovel; making insinuations as here, the edit summary here (later apologised for here).

From what I can see, tensions still run high at various MOS and style pages, because there are more people than just Pmanderson who fail to control themselves on those pages (and more than just Ohconfucius as well). I think the whole MOS and style pages still suffer from people who take a very combative attitude to all this (showing an unwillingness to discuss civilly or reasonably, and unable to compromise). This was, in my opinion, the underlying problem in the date delinking case, and in some cases the root verbal incivility and attitude of some of the participants at MOS and style pages is still causing problems. I would urge that the attitude of all editors actively involved in MOS and style pages is given closer scrutiny, starting with Pmanderson and Ohconfucius, and including any other editors previously or currently sanctioned who are continuing the conduct that led to their sanctions. Carcharoth (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Sandstein

Sandstein, your second bullet point ("does not appear to have changed the scope of Pmanderson's ban") is incorrect. The motion passed by the Arbitration Committee, that you linked to in your first bullet point (the text of which is also on the case talk page), did modify Pmanderson's topic ban. The diff of the clerk enacting that change is here. Search for "Pmanderson" and you will see both the change, and what Shell later re-widened the ban to include (she was effectively reversing the narrowing that had taken place). In my view, the clerk making the change here should have made this clearer by collapsing the old remedies and writing in new ones below the collapsed ones, rather than just overwriting them and misleadingly leaving in both the date as the date when the case closed and the votes from the proposed decision, rather than the date the motion was passed and the vote numbers from the motion. Collapsing the old remedies and adding in the new ones avoids administrators like Sandstein having to dig through the history to find out what happened here. I did actually point this out at the time, but it seems my suggestions were never acted upon. Sandstein, do you think replacing the over-writing with collapsed old remedies (dated for when the case closed, with the voting figures from the case) and visible new remedies (dated for when the motion passed, with voting figures from the motion) would help make things clearer? Also, would it have been clearer if Shell (or a clerk responsible for the page) had in addition to this edit made a note in the section containing the wording of Pmanderson's topic ban? Carcharoth (talk) 08:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recused, but as I commented at one of the earlier discussions of this (as an editor, not an arbitrator), I've done so again here, suggesting a way to resolve this with a minimum of fuss. Carcharoth (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC) UPDATE: I've also made a statement above, which is in addition to the AE comment. I'll restrict any further comments to the statement area above. Carcharoth (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• As a first comment, I think it is clear that the original return to the wide interpretation of the topic ban was both anticipated as a possibility and made explicit as the inevitable consequence of misbehavior ("very little patience towards renewed hostilities"). Therefore, there is no doubt that the wider sanction is valid and applies.

  That being said, that the topic ban of one editor has been widened does not give license to the other editors for disruptive behavior (or any form of antagonism); and that the role of Ohconfucius in this incident may well be worth a closer examination at enforcement. — Coren ^(talk) 00:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I do agree that the wider sanction is valid and does apply. Also, that other editors should endeavor not to use these sanctions as clubs in debates. The role that other editors played in this may be looked at as needed. SirFozzie (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Initiated by NW (Talk) at 16:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [2]
• Moreschi (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [3]

Statement by NuclearWarfare

Moreschi, acting under the discretionary sanctions authorized under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement, placed Armenian Genocide on WP:1RR about two years ago. Sandstein is disputing the fact that Moreschi had the authority to do so, as he believes that discretionary sanctions were meant to be applied per-editor and not per-article. I request that the Arbitration Committee please clarify if Moreschi's action was appropriate and enforceable. NW (Talk) 16:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sandstein

I agree that ArbCom clarification would be helpful here. I have explained the reasons why I have doubts whether the remedy covers this type of sanction at the AE thread.  Sandstein  16:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since arbitrators appear to agree that article-level sanctions are or ought to be permitted, I suggest that the decisions providing for discretionary sanctions be amended to that effect, so as to prevent this sort of uncertainty in the future.  Sandstein  07:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• In principle, it's possible to create an article-level 1RR restriction from a literal reading of the provisions for discretionary sanctions, if we assume (a) that the editnotice on the article constitutes a sufficient warning as required by ¶2, and (b) that the sanction being imposed is not the 1RR itself, but rather the 24-hour block, with the violation of the 1RR being merely the necessary evidence that the user "seriously fails to adhere to... normal editorial process". This is obviously not a particularly intuitive reading of the provisions—but, on the other hand, the time that has elapsed without Moreschi's interpretation being challenged suggests that it is one found useful by the community. The real question, I suppose, is whether we should modify the DS provisions to explicitly allow such sanctions; comments on that would be appreciated. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Regardless of whether a strict reading of the wording allows it (and I tend to agree with Kirill that it does), I tend to encourage "least-sufficient" restrictions when possible; and a limit placed on the specific article that's the locus of a dispute tends to be considerably less intrusive than limits placed on specific editors — and potentially much less open to accidental unfairness. — Coren ^(talk) 12:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Kirill and Coren; I think the spirit of discretionary sanctions is to allow admins leeway to find the least restrictive way to resolve an issue. Shell ^babelfish 06:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I have seen "unofficial" 1RR restrictions on articles("unofficial" in that it was created and enforced by administrators and not the committee) at least partially damper the flames on troublesome areas. I would support making a change either in how ArbCom hands down discretionary sanctions to explicitly allow this kind of option, or indeed modify the policy to allow that. SirFozzie (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The current solution seems to be working fine, and I believe Kirill's interpretation is appropriate under the circumstances. While my preference is generally to attach sanctions to users rather than articles, in some cases an article can be such an attractive nuisance that this is necessary. Exercise of article-based 1-RR sanctions need to be monitored closely; I have seen uninvolved, legitimate editors who arrive at an article to make perfectly normal copy-edit improvements be threatened with blocks (and even, in at least one case, actually blocked) because they didn't read the talk page in advance of editing and weren't aware of the sanction.

  If there are no further questions, I believe this section can be archived in 48 hours. Risker (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you think there would be any benefit in amending the provisions to more explicitly permit such restrictions? Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think this clarification makes that a pointless exercise for existing sanctions, though it would probably be a good idea to alter our "boilerplate" remedy wording to clarify this for future use. — Coren ^(talk) 00:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the matter in hand here has been clarified (the 1RR restriction is valid) and that arbitrators can discuss amending the boilerplate the next time this comes up. I agree that 1RR is useful sometimes, but like Risker I am wary of it being misused and used heavy-handedly. We shouldn't encourage overuse of 1RR restrictions, but only use where it is needed (similarly, articles with discretionary sanctions on them should be periodically reviewed to see if the sanctions have served their purpose and how to move forward, as the intention was never to have discretionary sanction in place indefinitely, but more to have them in place until an article of a reasonable standard gets written, which is the true ultimate goal). If an article reaches a good standard (e.g. featured), and is still subject to problems, then a different process is needed there. Carcharoth (talk) 10:11, 2 May 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.

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

According to the Wikipedia article about the phrase "moving the goalpost":

• The term is often used in business to imply bad faith on the part of those setting goals for others to meet, by arbitrarily making additional demands just as the initial ones are about to be met.
• This form of abuse tend to occur when there are unstated assumptions that are obvious to one party but not to another.

I do understand bad faith, but I reject applying the concept to ArbCom members. At the same time, I observe that ArbCom appears to be

• Moving the goalposts — not good
• Raising the bar — not good
• Extending a finish line — not good
• Changing the terms — not good

We can distinguish between bad faith and mere mistakes; however, we cannot reject the relevance of unstated assumptions which produce unintended consequences.

The good faith of volunteer mentors has been subjected to a needless form of abuse. --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Echo

In case these words are otherwise overlooked, I echo what Doc James writes here by asking what more is wanted?

Continued delay does not ameliorate any of the problems which ArbCom tacitly agreed to help resolve.

Continued inaction does not mitigate the consequences of the Gordian Knot which this forum wrongly fostered.

The arc of this case serves only to illustrate the relevance of Gresham's law in our Wikipedia community. --Tenmei (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I echo what Nihonjoe writes here by restating that I have complied with every little nit-picky thing you've come up with, and yet you still keep throwing out more .... There's a limit to how many hoops you should make someone jump through. --Tenmei (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adduced principle: Communication

The original ArbCom participants in Tang Dynasty affirmed this principle:

6) Editors should use their best efforts to communicate with one another, particular when disputes arise. 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. Editors should recognise when this is the case and take steps to address the problems, either on their own or, where necessary, by seeking assistance.

[emphasis underlining + italics added]

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman 21:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 00:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Vassyana (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D reminded ArbCom here that I was the one who inititiated this case. In compliance with what I understood to be ArbCom's instructions, I initiated this thread. These actions demonstrate my express purpose -- addressing perceived communication problems by seeking assistance. This deserves due respect.

However, ArbCom's failures of communication impede both collaboration and resolution. We confront serious problems. Thus far, ArbCom itself has not conformed with this adduced principle. Working together, we can move beyond the serial failures of the past year.--Tenmei (talk) 18:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Steve Smith

What distinguishes this thread from "Strategic default"? If this is not "Strategic default", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.

Ping.

SteveSmith -- Now what? Cui bono?

• This whatever-it-is is indistinguishable from punishment; and I'm left wondering what precisely am I being punished for?
• What recidivism is thus prevented?

How are the volunteer mentors and others in the community expected to construe this thread? What are you going to do? --Tenmei (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Coren

What distinguishes this thread from "Strategic default"? If this is not "Strategic default", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.

Ping.

Coren -- Now what? Cui bono?

• This whatever-it-is is indistinguishable from punishment; and I'm left wondering what precisely am I being punished for?
• What recidivism is thus prevented?

How are the volunteer mentors and others in the community expected to construe this thread? What are you going to do? --Tenmei (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to RogerDavies

What distinguishes this thread from "Strategic default"? If this is not "Strategic default", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.

Ping.

Roger Davies -- Now what? Cui bono?

• This whatever-it-is is indistinguishable from punishment; and I'm left wondering what precisely am I being punished for?
• What recidivism is thus prevented?

How are the volunteer mentors and others in the community expected to construe this thread? What are you going to do? --Tenmei (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Risker – Moving the goalposts

What distinguishes this thread from "moving the goalposts"? If this is not "moving the goalposts", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.

Ping.

Risker -- Now what? Cui bono?

• This whatever-it-is is indistinguishable from punishment; and I'm left wondering what precisely am I being punished for?
• What recidivism is thus prevented?

How are the volunteer mentors and others in the community expected to construe this thread? What are you going to do? --Tenmei (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Carcharoth – Raising the bar

What distinguishes this thread from "raising the bar"? If this is not "raising the bar", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.

Ping.

Carcharoth -- Now what? Cui bono?

• This whatever-it-is is indistinguishable from punishment; and I'm left wondering what precisely am I being punished for?
• What recidivism is thus prevented?

How are the volunteer mentors and others in the community expected to construe this thread? What are you going to do? --Tenmei (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to SirFozzie – Extending a finish line

What distinguishes this thread from "extending a finish line"? If this is not "extending a finish line", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.

Ping.

SirFozzie -- Now what? Cui bono?

• This whatever-it-is is indistinguishable from punishment; and I'm left wondering what precisely am I being punished for?
• What recidivism is thus prevented?

How are the volunteer mentors and others in the community expected to construe this thread? What are you going to do? --Tenmei (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Hersfold – Changing the terms

What distinguishes this thread from "Changing the terms"? If this is not "Changing the terms", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.

Ping.

Hersfold -- Now what? Cui bono?

• This whatever-it-is is indistinguishable from punishment; and I'm left wondering what precisely am I being punished for?
• What recidivism is thus prevented?

How are the volunteer mentors and others in the community expected to construe this thread? What are you going to do? --Tenmei (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Newyorkbrad — Runaround?

Your comment here in Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 is relevant in this Tang Dynasty thread: You explained that "[i]n general I dislike giving good-faith requests the runaround."

As it turned out, this Kafkaesque Tang Dynasty ordeal has been naught but a runaround.

As you know, Tang Dynasty began over a year ago when I proposed a very narrowly-defined case. As an appropriate context for this thread, that long-ago beginng remains modest, timely and relevant.

Let me refresh your memory of what I presented as context for narrow questions about how to deflect straw man arguments by re-asserting core policies and the importance of academic credibility in our Wikipedia project. I explained here:

In Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty, real-world factions have vied for control, turning it into a polemical battleground. In the venue which evolved before my eyes, long-term warriors have proven to be toxic. Under "battlefield" conditions as I encountered them, academic integrity becomes an all-encompassing priority. Any other course of action undercuts the credibility of the article and our collaborative wiki-encyclopedia. Although Issues 1-3 stand on their own, they have [Issues] become conflated in real-world disputes over 21st-century borders or oil and mineral rights. The initial impetus for this article was "salting the earth" in an article about Central Asia in the 7th-8th century in order to undercut a dispute in an article about China in the 12th-13th centuries; and the article has been continually attacked by those intending to affect current affairs by re-writing history. This perverts my ability to conribute to an article about a relatively minor topic; and it became increasingly difficult to follow on a coherent thread of reason.... --Tenmei (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This ArbCom process has produced many questions, but these are the ones with which I began. What ensued was unhelpful. You may recall that you summarized this Gordian Knot as a "welter of words" here.

Any assertion or response I tried to present was overwhelmed. What evolved in the past year has taken on a life of its own. Whether viewed from the starting point over a year ago, or construed in the terms of this one thread, this has been a runaround.

Why?

What distinguishes this thread from a "runaround" If this is not a "runaround", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.

Ping.

Newyorkbrad -- -- Now what? Cui bono?

• This whatever-it-is is indistinguishable from punishment; and I'm left wondering what precisely am I being punished for?
• What recidivism is thus prevented?

How are the volunteer mentors and others in the community expected to construe this thread? What are you going to do? --Tenmei (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Shell — Give it some time?

Shell Kinney -- Your comment here in Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 is relevant in this Tang Dynasty thread: You explained that "You're back on the right path - give it some time before immersing yourself in a difficult environment again."

In this Tang Dynasty case, please let me refresh your memory of what I presented as context for narrow questions about how to deflect straw man arguments by re-asserting core policies and the importance of academic credibility in our Wikipedia project. I explained here:

"...The title of Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty suggests something to do with the history of 7th-8th century Central Asia, but an unexplained backstory or subtext intruded unexpectedly again and again. This bigger problem cannot be resolved with this case, but at least ArbCom is now expressly alerted to the existence of a pernicious metastasis which will continue ad nauseam in other articles until effective counter-measures can be contrived. On the basis of my editing experience, this is not an isolated incident. The specifics are limited to the article and parties here; and the ambit of this dispute is also emblematic of problems affecting unrelated editors and articles." --Tenmei (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether viewed from the starting point over a year ago, or construed in the terms of this one thread, I have undoubtedly satisfied whatever anyone might mean by "'give it some time' before immersing yourself in a difficult environment again." Arguably, the effort to locate mentors and their comments in this thread was progress along "the right path" and yet, there is no joy in Mudville.

Why?

What distinguishes this thread from "the right path?" If this is not a "the right path", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.

Ping.

Shell Kinney -- Now what? Cui bono?

• This whatever-it-is is indistinguishable from punishment; and I'm left wondering what precisely am I being punished for?
• What recidivism is thus prevented?

How are the volunteer mentors and others in the community expected to construe this thread? What are you going to do? --Tenmei (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doc james

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 [4] 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]

I try to provide advice in such a way as to support and supplement the approach of those who have agreed to be mentors. I would like to see Tenmei back to editing articles: I think Tenmei has a great capacity for providing referenced material to build articles. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May Tenmei have permission to return to editing? I will keep an eye on things this week and provide feedback. As it has been more than 3 months I think it would be reasonable to move forwards.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite some prior discussion with Tenmei about being a mentor, I chose not to be in this group because i thought the process more complicated than necessary, and there were already quite enough other people. But I can't see any objections if Tenmai wants to try it, since there are willing mentors of high editing quality and proven responsibility. DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think for starter Tenmei should be allowed to edit in topic areas far removed from what his arb com revolved around. Preferable I would like too see him expand what type of work he does but of course we are all volunteers and no one really has any binding obligation. To give all a heads up I am leaving reasonable computer access on March 16th and not back until April 11th.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I agree that we should hammer something out before we move forwards.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to assisst Tenmei in oversighting his edits. Leujohn ^{(talk, stalk me?)} 13:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So what's happening now? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My position is similar to DGG with one exception that my reason for not being directly in the group is not because of the complexity, but rather because of uenxpected periods of inactivity that are forthcoming. I have to note that I have flatly declined mentorship invitations by others without such reasons, but I actually considered this one - purely based on (what appears to be) Tenmei's determination and enthusiasm on trying to make this work somehow. This matter should be dealt with efficiently because any stalling or inefficiency is likely to affect Tenmei's determination/enthusiasm/faith, which will have a direct effect on the generous users who are willing and able to spend their time on/with Tenmei (which will of course affect the prospects of any system working). It took far longer for him to try to devise a system than it does to read his thoughts, ask direct questions, and receive answers (be it to/from Tenmei or mentors). Being cryptic would be counterproductive here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nihonjoe

I was told by Amory that Risker had posed some questions here and that I was supposed to come answer them. I'm assuming these are the questions:

(a) how you will address differences amongst yourselves (a situation we have encountered in other mentoring situations);

This seems to me that Risker is assuming we're all idiots here (that's the impression I get from the tone of these questions). As with everything else on Wikipedia, if I have a concern or disagreement I'll discuss it with anyone involved. Not sure if you're looking for something else here, Risker, but this one is really a no-brainer.

(b) what range of actions you are willing to undertake as individuals and as a group;

I have no idea what you mean here. I'll help where I can, and that's it. I don't plan on monitoring Tenmei 24/7, if that's what you mean, but if there is an issue and someone brings it up to me, I'll look into it.

(c) how the "group" will work when Tenmei is also receiving private advice from individuals not specifically included in the group of mentors.

Again, I think you're making this far more complicated than it needs to be, Risker. If Tenmei is receiving "private" advice, then he's receiving private advice and it's not likely we'll know about it unless it's posted on the site somewhere. If there's an issue we need to discuss, then we'll discuss it. There's no need to act as if we're children here, Risker. Tenmei is obviously willing to work with us and we're willing to work with him on this issue. Tenmei has complied with every little nit-picky thing you've come up with, and yet you still keep throwing out more that he must do. There's a limit to how many hoops you should make someone jump through when they are going above and beyond to show they are willing to improve. Do you want something signed in blood to prove it? Sorry if I sound a bit miffed here, but I believe this is another case where ArbCom is going far beyond the bounds of what they are supposed to do. Perhaps it's time you started assuming a little good faith on the part of those who've offered to help rather than giving us all the third degree and acting as if we're all idiots who don't know how to work here. We've all been here for a long time, and have a proven track record showing we know how things work and how to interact, so posing these "Duh" questions is pointless and makes it appears as if you believe we don't have the experience we do. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Taivo

It has been said that Wikipedia too easily devolves into a MMORPG. These arbitration actions seem to cross the line more easily than other Wikipedia activities. Risker's questions imply that the mentorship group needs fixed rules for interactions with marauding barbarians and some kind of definite written constitution in order to guide our actions so that our swords are not cutting one another rather than the orcs around us. Nihonjoe is right on the money. We'll work like reasonably intelligent adult human beings and resolve the differences in the true Wikipedia manner--by working toward consensus. (As a note, I don't know where Risker's questions are--he didn't bother to put them in a separate subsection here so that I don't waste my time trying to hack through the jungle. I just used Nihonjoe's summary of them above.)

Here is my take on the situation so far.

• Tenmei is a sincere, intelligent editor who wants the best for Wikipedia.
• Tenmei seems to be knowledgeable in his field of interest.
• Tenmei is tendentious in his writing and doesn't understand what "short and to the point" means.
• Tenmei wanders off into vague and therefore meaningless metaphors based on 20 different mythological and literary traditions and expects his readers to be conversant in them all.
• Tenmei is unable to generalize his comments and therefore gets into details that only an electron microscope could detect.
• Tenmei invents pseudo-technical terminology to describe the problem or his perception of the problem that is unnecessary, vague, and somewhat misleading.
• Tenmei takes personal offense too easily to the Arbitration process.

When I was first approached by Tenmei to be a volunteer mentor, I made it clear what I thought his problem with communication was. I severely critiqued several of his posts, but while he made them shorter, he still continued to wander off into meaningless metaphor, cut an excessively fine point to the details of his comments, and invent meaningless techno-babble to describe the Arbitration process and his frustrations with aspects of it. Unfortunately, I think it is the style of writing and communication which he learned as a young man and it is so ingrained in him that he is unable to recognize it, let alone change it. It means that his ability to communicate effectively in a discussion and content disagreement on Wikipedia, where the majority of editors do not share the ground from which he draws his metaphors, is severely limited. The techno-babble he invents and insists on using, despite my efforts to tell him to stop using it, means that he actually clouds the issue he is discussing more than he enlightens it. The longer he writes using unknown metaphors and invented techno-babble, the more meaningless his comments become. I hate to be so harsh, but after reading his first email, I stopped reading past the first two sentences of subsequent emails. He fails to understand that other Wikipedia editors will do exactly the same thing in any content dispute. While his expertise would be a great contribution to Wikipedia, he is unable to communicate it to the typical Wikipedia editor. Imagine going into battle with two weapons. One weapon will kill one enemy at a time, but has a single button that says, "Push to fire". The other weapon will kill all enemies at once, but has a 1,000-page instruction manual that details the history of the weapon's development, the academic qualifications of its makers, the theory behind its operation, and the instruction "Push the red button to fire" buried on page 739 in the middle of the page. Unfortunately, Tenmei wrote the latter instruction and I'm not certain that the writer who produced the 1,000-page instruction manual is capable of creating a sticker on the side of the weapon that says "Push to fire". To him, it's just not elegant or subtle or finely-honed enough; it carries none of the warnings or history or comparisons to classical warfare that decorate the verbiage of the manual. (Taivo (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment from Robofish

I'll keep this brief. When I agreed to be a mentor, I assumed it would be a fairly simple task, a matter of overseeing Tenmei's edits, giving him occasional advice, and helping him to resolve disputes (or, ideally, avoid getting into them in the first place). It looks now that it would be something more complex and formal, involving discussing things with the other mentors and agreeing with them before deciding whether any particular action can receive our approval. Basically, it sounds like it's getting too bureaucratic to me, and as I don't have as much time to spend on Wikipedia as I used to anyway, I think I have to drop out. Sorry Tenmei - I hope you're able to work something out here and reach a universally acceptable solution that will allow you to return to editing, but I don't think I'm able to be part of it. Robofish (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from McDoobAU93

Per request, I've taken the time to review the posed questions and provide my answers, as well as my general understanding of the situation. First of all, I believe that Tenmei has the basics of becoming a good Wikipedia editor. However, one skill in which Tenmei needs assistance is in collaboration with others. Bombarding users with philosophical metaphors is not very helpful. I'm eager to assist because what I see in Tenmei is something I see in myself ... that is, I find myself in real life trying to provide all the possible information I can, instead of just what the requester asked for. I think, in time, we'll both learn something during this process, and that appeals to me.

Now, as to the questions posed by Risker:

(a) how you will address differences amongst yourselves (a situation we have encountered in other mentoring situations)?

Considering how much of a collaborative effort Wikipedia is, let alone this particular ArbCom action, I see no reason to think that any differences amongst the mentors would be handled any differently than any other difference in opinion on the project ... by edit warring, revert frenzies and such. (Sorry, turning humor off.) Seriously, I think those of us who have been here a while all feel the same way; we want to work things out to make Wikipedia better, and helping an editor become a better contributor does just that. My talk page is always open, and I try to respond to each and every message as quickly as I can. Consensus will hopefully be easy to reach as this process advances, but if it doesn't, we'll work it out.

(b) what range of actions you are willing to undertake as individuals and as a group?

I'd like to think that most actions necessary could be done unilaterally, especially when it comes to dealing with general policy issues. However, in the event something more complex comes up, I would feel better getting input from the other mentors.

(c) how the "group" will work when Tenmei is also receiving private advice from individuals not specifically included in the group of mentors.

Again, I'm hoping that when it comes to simple things, only one person at a time should be able to solve the problem. That said, I think I probably would like to at least know who Tenmei is talking with, even if I don't ever address them directly (I think another editor suggested that).

I think that the goal here is a sound one ... provide Tenmei with guidance as to how to better collaborate with other editors on the project, and I'm prepared to assist in any way I can.

--McDoobAU93 (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Kraftlos

I have to agree with the others who have commented here. This is simply us checking in on Tenmei and trying to keep him going in a positive direction. I know you guys were expecting some sort of formal process here, but to me that seems counterproductive. I imagine any of us can comment on his editing habits, and if needed we can ask the other mentors for opinions. This isn't rocket science. I think Tenmei's editing has been held up for too long, the only way he is going to learn is through practice. So what is this:

1. We need editing rules for Tenmei. ArbCom should specify a topic ban (if any) and explicitly define what he can and cant do and for how long.
2. We mentors try to keep him going in a positive direction. This doesn't need to be excessively formal, it can probably be best organized on his talkpage, we all can have it on our watchlist. I don't foresee any conflicts between mentors, we're all on the same team. Though this isn't an adminship, I see the spirit of WP:WHEEL being followed here; we try not to contradict each other.
3. Let's see what happens. Let him edit and maybe in a month or two we can have a followup discussion about his progress, either through ArbCom or just in userspace. If things don't work out, you can always pull the plug and bring us back to the drawing board.

How does that sound? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused by SirFozzie's vote. From what I gather, the reasoning that because it has taken such a long time and all this effort to get to this point, that the mentorship is going to be a failure because that process will resemble what has occurred here? I haven't seen anything on our part that has caused this to be delayed as much as it has been. What exactly was your problem with this proposal and what do you think needs to changed? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Coppertwig

Note that John Carter (contribs) has not edited since December 24. I don't think there's any point in waiting for a reply from him at this point in time before proceeding. The others have all replied. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Leujohn

I apologize for not paying attention tot his discussion lately. I was off wiki the last week or so.

Response to Risker

I will try to make my answers as brief as possible, as I do not want to add to any possible confusion.

(a) how you will address differences amongst yourselves (a situation we have encountered in other mentoring situations)

I do not think I am qualified to answer this question on my own, as I am not the only mentor. The only thing I can say for sure is that we will talk it out. Us mentors have had quite a few discussions on Google Wave that have turned out very well, and I believe that this can continue. However, we are mentors for Tenmei, not the ruler of him. Should we get into a major conflict, I will try to reach a compromise with the group, but should even that fail, we will give Tenmei our options and I trust that he is capable of distinguishing what option is best for him.

(b) what range of actions you are willing to undertake as individuals and as a group

As an individual, I am willing to be an advisor to Tenmei, but I will not force him to follow what I say, as should he thinks what I say is not the best way, I cannot do much to force him to "obey" me. Tenmei should be unlikely to get into an argument, but should he do, I am willing to be a mediator, but I will not be part of the argument for his side, as the only possible outcome of me doing that is flaring up the argument more. I think the rest of the group will agree with me on this.

(c) how the "group" will work when Tenmei is also receiving private advice from individuals not specifically included in the group of mentors

I believe that if Tenmei trusts someone enough as to let that someone mentor him, I see no reason why I should disallow him to do so, but I will try to give some additional advice regarding the matter.

Please remember that I am not the only mentor, so I am only speaking for myself. Leujohn ^{(talk, stalk me?)} 10:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Doc James

I think the recommendations above are reasonable. Details can be determined if events occur. I think it is time to get Tenmei back to editing the main space. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is arbcomm waiting for anything further? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

• Could a clerk please notify all of the mentors, especially those who have not yet commented here (if I'm not mistaken, that's User:John Carter, User:McDoobAU93, User:Robofish, and User:Taivo), and ask them to post answers here to the questions Risker has posed below. As far as I can see, none of those questions have been answered except by Tenmei, and both Risker and myself would like to see independent responses from the mentors. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So done. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The proposed mentors have been advised that voting on the motion has commenced -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]

• Tenmei, I have noted your response to me above; however, I would really like to hear from your own mentors how they will address, at the minimum, differences amongst themselves. I was observant of the challenges and issues that arose out of some previous mentorships where there was a large team of mentors, and I do not believe that anyone involved was really satisfied with the situation. One mentor would advise the editor to do X, and another mentor would disagree and say that Y was the right course, for example; or Mentor C would identify behaviour as blockable, while Mentor D thought it was a perfectly reasonable response. I can live with the idea of mentors returning to this board for clarification (and hope that we will be somewhat more responsive), but it's important to understand how this large a team will work for your benefit, Tenmei. I am very concerned about you receiving mixed or inconsistent messages. Risker (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This can't move forward until Risker's questions above are answered. Could a clerk please notify the editors who need to comment here. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tenmei, if you want DGG to comment here, by all means invite him to do so. As for your comments about "raising the bar", it is not unreasonable for us to ask the possible mentors to lay out here what they see as their role in all this. I count, so far, Doc James and Kraftlos (of those you list) and in addition to this, Nihonjoe and Coppertwig. The layout at User talk:Tenmei/Sub-page Alerts is impressive, but there needs to be some indication of how this will work, otherwise this risks becoming a time sink if it goes wrong. Carcharoth (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tenmei, I'm supportive of you resuming editing with mentors, but please be patient and wait for other arbitrators and those willing to mentor you to respond here. I realise it must be frustrating for you, but if you wait just a little bit longer and let others speak, then we may finally get something workable set up here. We want this to work, not collapse because it was not set up properly. Carcharoth (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• At this point, I'm not sure any mentorship program will work, considering the difficulties to get to this point. SirFozzie (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to leave my vote that it is now (disallowing the situation), but willing to be outvoted/persuaded. SirFozzie (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not entirely convinced that allowing Tenmei to return to editing would be a positive, especially given the comments he's made here. However, if the mentors are certain that they would be able to make a positive difference here, I'm willing to give it a shot. I'd need to see responses from all of them to Risker's questions, though, and that hasn't happened. I'd also like to know what efforts you (the mentors) will each make to ensure that Tenmei is continuing to be monitored in times of your absence; should several of you be temporarily inactive at the same time, what is your plan B? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question for Tenmei: As an extension to Risker's question C, would you be willing to identify these private mentors to your public mentors, so that if there is some disagreement between the two, the public mentors may contact them for discussion? Risker's questions address disunion amongst your public mentors, but when your private and public mentors disagree, I don't want this turning into a "mom said no, so let's ask dad" situation. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

Tenmei (talk · contribs) may edit Wikipedia under the guidance of his self-declared mentors (Nihonjoe (talk · contribs), Kraftlos (talk · contribs), Coppertwig (talk · contribs), Leujohn (talk · contribs), Jmh649 (talk · contribs), McDoobAU93 (talk · contribs)). The period of mentorship will last six months from the date on which this motion passes, although it may be extended with the agreement of Tenmei and one or more mentors. Tenmei is strongly encouraged to seek advice and guidance from his mentors regularly. Should they deem it necessary, Tenmei's mentors may return to the Arbitration Committee for clarification of any editing restrictions or questions with respect to the terms of mentorship. Editors who come into conflict with Tenmei are advised to contact the mentor(s) either publicly or via email.

Tenmei is reminded of the remedies from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty that apply to him. Specifically:

• Tenmei is topic-banned from Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty for a period of six months. He is permitted to comment on the talkpage, so long as he does so in a civil fashion. (The six-month period will commence from the date on which this motion passes.)
• Tenmei is instructed not to interact with or comment with regard to Teeninvestor or Caspian blue on any page of Wikipedia, except in the course of legitimate dispute resolution initiated by others.

There being 16 arbitrators, 6 of whom are inactive, the majority is 6.

Support

1. Tenmei has made a genuine effort as directed by the Arbitration Committee to seek out suitable mentors, who have demonstrated their willingness to work with Tenmei. Risker (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. — Coren ^(talk) 18:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Carcharoth (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Shell ^babelfish 08:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Willing to give it a shot. KnightLago (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7.  Roger Davies ^talk 16:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. I am willing to see this tried, and will hold off on further comment until we see how it works out. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. Per previous notes. SirFozzie (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse

Abstain