Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:37, 13 April 2010 editCoren (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,492 edits →Arbitrator views and discussion: Offliner has shown no desire for an actual clarification← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:38, 15 December 2024 edit undoHouseBlaster (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators58,044 edits →Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal: remove archived requestTag: Replaced 
Line 1: Line 1:
<noinclude>{{ArbComOpenTasks}}</noinclude> <noinclude>{{shortcut|WP:ARCA}}{{ArbComOpenTasks}}__TOC__{{pp-move-indef}}<div style="clear:both"></div></noinclude>


= {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification|Requests for clarification|]}} = <includeonly>= ] =</includeonly><noinclude>{{If mobile||{{Fake heading|sub=1|Requests for clarification and amendment}}}}</noinclude>
{{-}}{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header}} {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Header}}
<noinclude>{{-}}</noinclude>

]
== Request for clarification: ban of ] ==
]
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 10:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|Colchicum}} (initiator)
*{{userlinks|Offliner}} (impossible to notify, banned user, talk page protected)
*{{userlinks|Future Perfect at Sunrise}} , wondered a similar thing in February

=== Statement by Colchicum ===
Back in January Offliner was all of a sudden banned indefinitely by the ArbCom without any explanation. However, he has since appealed his ban and will be a member of the community again in less than a year. Especilly under such circumstances I think it is absolutely vital for the community to know the reasons behind his ban. I am not going to ask anybody to go into detail and present evidence, particularly if it concerns privacy violations, but what are the specific charges? The policies he violated should not be kept secret in themselves. As long as he is supposed to return, the community should have a very clear idea of his inclinations. ] (]) 10:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Re various. I don't care whether ''Offliner'' wants public clarification or anything else. I am not a big fan of him at all, to put it mildly, and I readily believe that he might have eaten children for breakfast. ''I'' want clarification on who I and others are going to stumble across in a year. What were the charges? Sockpuppetry, outing? More akin to the latter, as far as I can infer from some of the comments here. But this fact is not personal information by itself. Is it that difficult to announce properly? ] (]) 21:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Russavia ===
I am fully aware of the circumstances surrounding the ban of ], and I will say that it was based purely on tangental evidence, and this has been noted as such in several emails from Arbs to Offliner (which I am in possession of). Basically, the Committee, driven by one or two particular Arbitrators (it seems), have made Offliner the fallguy for information relating to a particular recent Arbcase appearing on ], and have accussed him of off-wiki harrassment. ] and ] have made the accusation against Offliner directly. There is zero evidence of such, and the appeal from Offliner to ] (which I am also in possession of) shoots holes thru the Committee's accusations against him, and make the suggestion that the appeal be made public, so that the community can judge for itself whether the ban has any merits -- I have permission from Offliner to publicly post his appeal with information refuting the Committee's accusations. The Committee needs to answer the questions raised by Offliner in his appeal, and make the full reasoning public. --] <sup>]</sup> 11:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I have forwarded a copy of Offliner's appeal to ] to ] for his perusal (with permission of Offliner). It should be publicly noted that the Committee claimed that it had '''technical evidence''' that Offliner was responsible for certain things. Yet, when Offliner has asked what this evidence was, the committee sidestepped the issue, and refused to answer. What the committee basically did was decide to hold a secret trial in which Offliner's guilt was obviously predetermined, and they refused to listen to any sort of logical reasoning - sorry committee, but show trials such as ] are sooo-1930s Soviet Union, and you guys are also liable to be held to account for your actions. I suggest that the Committee come clean with the flimsy reasons for the ban, and also admit that they may have just gotten it wrong on this occasion, and ] Offliner forthwith. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that ] went unanswered in January; no such silence from the Committee in April should be tolerated. If is indeed an Arbcom member, then you should be ashamed; isn't it obvious that Offliner wants a public clarification? Why else would Offliner give me permission to forward his appeal email to an admin? In fact, if you look thru your mailing list archives, you will see numerous emails from Offliner asking for clarification, only for them to be ignored, and for him to receive a single email from Lokshin repeating unfounded allegations and stating that the Committee isn't interested in hearing his side (and therefore, logical information). It is absolutely astounding that an Arb (if it is one) is suggesting that Offliner follow due process, but yet they have not done so themselves. --] <sup>]</sup> 18:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Offliner has informed me that he has now asked for public clarification by way of sending an email to the Arbcom. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by Biophys ===
It's none of our business when people are ''privately'' talking, like Russavia and Offliner or CAMERA people. However, any ''real life harassment in the open internet'' is a serious problem and must be punished by block if wikipedia-related.

I now must retire to avoid the ungoing outing and harassment (see statement by Vlad at the workshop talk page) and would not be able to represent myself any longer. But I might return back when it is safe. Please do not reveal any personal information. Best wishes. ] (]) 13:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by other user ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

=== Clerk notes ===

=== Arbitrator views and discussion ===
* I believe it's in everyone's best interests&mdash;possibly including Offliner's&mdash;to limit the spread of potentially private information. If ''Offliner'' wants a public clarification, he can ask for it via email, and we'll deal with the matter then. ] '']'' 19:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
*:No, Russavia, I should not be ashamed. BASC did in fact answer Offliner's formal appeal by reducing the ban length from indefinite to 12 months. This happened in February. We have not received anything from Offliner recently, although perhaps it's caught in moderation. If we get something from Offliner, we will discuss it with Offliner and other involved parties. ] '']'' 22:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
*::Note: It has been correctly pointed out to me, that changing an indefinite block to 12 months is not always a reduction. In many cases, "indefinite" may be a short time&mdash;as when an editor is required to respond to a particular request. In this case, I believe fixing the end date was to Offliner's benefit, so felt it could be described as a "reduction," but I hope that this perhaps poorly-chosen word doesn't distract from my main point. Namely, we ''did'' respond to Offliner and will continue to respond to him now. He knows why he was blocked and has known for some time. ] '']'' 14:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
* No. Offliner is aware of the reasons, and can seek clarification himself if he feels it required. No other editor has standing to request (let alone demand) that information and we do not divulge private information to third parties, period. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 21:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
**Offliner has been given, repeatedly and in detail, the explanation of why he has been banned. This was done at the time of the ban, repeated during his BASC appeal, and has been repeated again as recently as a few hours ago. That he refuses to ''accept'' the explanation does not make it wink out of existence. It is worth noting that Offliner still has not agreed (or even ''requested'') to have our explanation posted publicly, he is simply demanding that we reverse our decision. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 15:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
* Per Luke and Coren. I will note that do not agree with several aspects of Russavia's characterization of things, but will not elaborate absent a request from Offliner that I do so. ] (]) 18:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
*Russavia, can I just say that Offliner gave you a very one-sided version of events that doesn't appear to approach reality at any point? Still waiting on clarification from Offliner about what he wants here. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
----

== Request for clarification: ] ==
'''Initiated by ''' ] (]) '''at''' 20:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

''List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
*{{userlinks|Tenmei}} (initiator)
*{{admin|John Carter}} --
*{{userlinks|Jmh649}} --
*{{userlinks|Kraftlos}} --
*{{userlinks|Leujohn}} --
*{{userlinks|McDoobAU93}} --
*{{userlinks|Robofish}} --
*{{userlinks|Taivo}} --
<!-- Substitute "admin" for "userlinks" if a user is an administrator. Anyone else affected must be notified that the request has been filed,
immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. The line for username2 can be removed if no-one else is affected. -->

=== 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 ] for a period of six months, ''to begin <u>when a mentor is located and approved by the Committee</u>. 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) ] <s>shall be assigned</s> 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:
{{col-begin}}
{{col-2}}
:* ]
:* ]
:* ]
:* ]
{{col-2}}
* ]
* ]
* ]
{{col-end}}
:ArbCom "approval" or confirmation is anticipated.<br>
:<small><s><font color="darkred"></font></s></small>

::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 ] is sufficient, good. If not, what alternative action is preferred?<br>
::<small><s><font color="darkred"></font></s></small>

::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 ] or here, good. If not, what alternative action is preferred?<br>
::<small><s><font color="darkred"></font></s></small>

::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?<br>
::<small><s><font color="darkred"></font></s></small>

::D. If this is not the correct venue to address these matters, what venue is preferred?<br>
::<small><s><font color="darkred"></font></s></small>

====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 ]. Some have agreed to participate only on condition that he/she is part of a group, e.g.,
* ] --
* ] -- .

Anticipating time constraints and other burdens, ] 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 ]: 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 from ] 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, ]'s comments about counting words were rephrased and refocused by ]. Although unconventional in this ArbCom setting, the word counting illustrates an arguably constructive experiment already initiated by the Mentorship Committee. --] (]) 02:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
:<u>Bottom line</u>. Please do not undervalue a core factor affecting the prospective success of wiki-mentorship -- that <b>volunteer mentors need <u>your</u> ] and ] and ] along with mine</b>. --] (]) 03:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

====Response to Coren====
] is the only one of us with ] 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 ] 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 ] is one of ]'s mentors. His early advice was informed by what seemed to have worked well in that unique setting. For example, and were created as a result of his suggestions.

]'s early involvement doubtless influenced others in their willingness to join my mentorship group. For example, when ] agreed to join, he wrote, --] (]) 05:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

:In the contexts of ]' question and ]'s question below, it seems timely to recite something Coren explained in an e-mail: "Actually, mentorship is exactly ]: good counsel ... experienced editor familiar with the intricacies of how Misplaced Pages works." --] (]) 18:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
::<u>Bottom line</u>. Please do what you can to ensure that your colleagues do not overlook an essential factor -- that <b>volunteer mentors need <u>your</u> ] and ] and ] along with mine</b> --] (]) 03:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

====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 ] search for a ] of co-mentors. My best interests are fulfilled only if their investments of time and thought are made easy and effective.

<u>Principles</u>. In circumstances which are impossible to foretell, the analysis of ] functioning in a ]-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 Misplaced Pages") This means that "the ] of our content is extremely important ..., requir that article content that is challenged or is likely to be challenged must be attributed to a published ] supporting the information presented." (Principle 3, "Reliability and verifiability of sources") In the same way that "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")

<u>Remedies</u>. 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 "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 "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 "his particularly applies to editors whose native language may not be English." (''See'' Principle 4, "Non-] language sources")

<u>Non-English language</u>. Preliminary decisions in Tang Dynasty inform expectations about which may become problematic in the future. <s>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 out the input of one or more uninvolved ]-speaking editors." &mdash;&nbsp;] 05:49, 24 March 2009
* "Some input from a ]-speaking administrator or experienced editor on the sourcing/verifiability and related issues might be helpful here." &mdash;&nbsp;] 03:48, 19 March 2009
* "I'm going to second that request from an uninvolved ]-literate editor; it does appear that any case would revolve around the sources, and a good interpretation of them appears indispensable. &mdash;&nbsp;] 00:40, 20 March 2009
* "I think Wikisource can be of assistance here as a scratch pad to record the sources ]] and translations. Wikisource has an Author page ... here are no limitations on the amount of detail that can be recorded on Wikisource Author pages ... if no public domain translation is available, a collaborative translation can be created on English Wikisource." &mdash;&nbsp;] 00:20, 26 March 2009
* "I see that we are stuck here. Has any ]-speaking editor who would help been found?" &mdash;&nbsp;] 18:46, 25 March 2009</s>
] is ], living in ]; and if he should be unavailable, ] has agreed to assist the mentors as needed. An anonymous ]-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.

<u>Communciation</u>. 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, ]'s background in East Asian matters may be helpful for the mentors. ]'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 <s>other context-related</s> back-up.

<u>Working venues</u>. As a result of ]'s suggestions (developed from what seemed effective or useful in ]'s mentoring process), <s>the following</s> a bold orange Notice/navagation bar was posted near the top of the page at ]:
:'''Mentorship Committee &ndash; for issues requiring mentors' involvement, <big>→&nbsp;→&nbsp;→&nbsp;→</big> click <big><u><i>]</i></u></big>

This notice bar links to . 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 ], ] and ].

<u>Other mentors or advisors</u>. If other "public" mentors are to be added, the names can be submitted for ArbCom confirmation. <s>in a manner similar to this thread</s> 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.

<s><u>]</u>. 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.</s> --] (]) 18:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

:<u>Bottom line</u>. Please do not overlook the crucial factor which makes this workable -- <b>volunteer mentors need <u>your</u> ] and ] and ] along with mine</b> --] (]) 03:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

====Response to Risker &ndash; <big>]</big>====
]'s enquiry strays outside the scope of A + B + C; and in this way, it becomes like ].
:A. ArbCom told me to locate a mentor or mentors.
::Yes &mdash; 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 &mdash; the volunteers are ready to do just that.
:C. ]'s questions are like ].
:: No &mdash; paraphrasing ]'s words: "... mentorship is exactly ]: good counsel ... experienced editor familiar with the intricacies of how Misplaced Pages 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?

<u>What respects volunteers</u>? 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." ]'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, ]. 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 ]; and this explains why my Mentorship Committee is comprised of (a) "mentors", as described at ]; and (b) "mentors", as conventionally understood and described at ].

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 -- which means paying attention to a changing ] which encompasses each person’s expectation of what the other expects him to expect to be expected to do.

<u>What is the main thing</u>? At , the main objective was clarified: "... a mentor is like a coach mostly." In this explicit context, words from the userpage of ] offer a succinct response to ]'s three questions and any corollaries:
;<center><b>The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.</b></center>

In June 2009, ] restated <b>ArbCom's objectives</b>:
:A. <b>rbitration requires that you work with one or more users to help you communicate better</b> 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. <b>ur interest is not in criticizing you but finding ways to enable you to better edit the encyclopedia</b>. 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.

<u>]</u>. As ] explained in June 2009, As succinctly expressed by ] , " ...this is encyclopedia-bulding project, not an experiment in virtual governance ...."

<s><u>]</u>. 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.</s> --] (]) 20:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

:At best, ]'s reasoning illustrates a ] which is inapposite in this unique case. --] (]) 18:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

{{collapse top|'''Tenmei's sentences in table format'''}}
;<u>What respects volunteers</u>?
{|class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! width="2%" | #
! width="40%" | Tenmei's sentences
! width="34%" | Core issues
! width="24%" | Comment
|-
!colspan="5"|'''WHAT RESPECTS VOLUNTEERS? '''
|----
|1
|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."
|volunteers' involvement needs to be<br/> easy & effective
|
|-
|2
|]'s questions are not easy; and whatever time volunteers might invest in answering would likely produce little more than ineffective guesswork.
|hypotheticals are unproductive<br>
]
|]<br/>
----
ArbCom ]
|-
|3
|In part, mentorship was proposed by ArbCom as a remedy because, ].
|re-defining problem set to match available tools is ] rather than ]
|]<br/>
----
ArbCom ]
|-
|4
|In contrast, the wide-ranging search for volunteers ensured that a broad range of tools are available.
|practical & specific ]
|
|-
|5
|In part, the group-structure was necessitated by the problems which flow from the ArbCom ]; and this explains why my Mentorship Committee is comprised of (a) "mentors", as described at ]; and (b) "mentors", as conventionally understood and described at ].
|• ] = ArbCom "mentor"
• ArbCom "mentor" = ]
|]<br/>
----
ArbCom ]
|-
|6
|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.
|• "No" to fixing conceptual flaws in ArbCom terminology
• "No" to devising ArbCom mentoring structures<br/>
----
• "Yes" to investing limited time in meaningful activity
|]<br/>
----
ArbCom ]
|-
|7
|I construe my responsibilities to -- which means paying attention to a changing ] which encompasses each person’s expectation of what the other expects him to expect to be expected to do.
|practical & specific ]
|
|-
|}

;<u>What is the main thing</u>?
{|class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! width="2%" | #
! width="40%" | Tenmei's sentences
! width="34%" | Core issues
! width="24%" | Comments
|-
!colspan="5"|'''WHAT IS THE MAIN THING? '''
|----
|1
| At , the main objective was clarified: "... a mentor is like a coach mostly."
| ] is like a ] mostly
|
|-
|2
| In this explicit context, words from the userpage of ] offer a succinct response to ]'s three questions and any corollaries: The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.
| The main thing is<br/> to keep the main thing<br/> the main thing.
| ]<br/>
----
ArbCom ]
|-
|3
| In June 2009, ] restated ArbCom's objectives:
| 2009 goals <big>≠</big> 2010 objectives;<br/> incongruent miss-match
| ]<br/>
----
ArbCom ]
|-
|4
| 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.
| practical & specific ]
|
|-
|5
| 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.
| legitimate concerns and questions which remain unaddressed
|
|-----
|6
| C. The main issue continues to be that your style of communication is a barrier to you working collaboratively with other people.
| barriers which remain unresolved
|
|-
|7
| D. You need to focus on changing the things that you can change.
| practical & specific ]
|
|-
|8
| E. 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.
| practical & specific ]
|
|-
|9
| Now is the time to let these volunteer mentors get to work.
| practical & specific ]
| ]<br/>
----
ArbCom ]
|-
|}

;<u>]</u>.
{|class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! width="2%" | #
! width="40%" | Tenmei's sentences
! width="34%" | Core issues
! width="24%" | Comments
|-
!colspan="5"|'''REINVENTING THE WHEEL? '''
|----
|1
| As ] explained in June 2009,
| simple planning to work through issues as they arise
| ]<br/>
----
ArbCom ]
|-
|2
| As succinctly expressed by ] , " ...this is encyclopedia-bulding project, not an experiment in virtual governance ...."
|• editing articles <big>≠</big> community-building

• editing articles <big>≠</big> ]
| ]<br/>
----
ArbCom ]
|-
|}
{|class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! width="2%" | #
! width="40%" | Tenmei's sentences
! width="34%" | Core issues
! width="24%" | Comments
|-
|
| At best, ]'s reasoning illustrates a ] which is inapposite in this unique case.
| ]
| ]<br/>
----
ArbCom ]
|-
|}
{|class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! width="2%" | #
! width="40%" | Tenmei's sentences
! width="34%" | Core issues
! width="24%" | Comments
|-
|
| <u>Bottom line</u>. Please do not forget that volunteer mentors need <u>your</u> ] and ] and ] along with mine.
| volunteers <u>need</u> ] and ] and ]
| ]<br/>
----
ArbCom ]
|-
|}

{{collapse bottom}}

<u>Bottom line</u>. Please do not forget that <b>volunteer mentors need <u>your</u> ] and ] and ] along with mine</b>. --] (]) 20:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

====Response to Carcharoth &ndash; <big>]</big>====
The responses to ] + ] + ] + ] are comprehensive and clear. ]'s words are like ], which here takes the form of "]" as objectives are redefined. According to the Misplaced Pages article about the phrase "]":
* The term is often used in business to imply ] 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.
At best, ]'s reasoning illustrates a ] which is inapposite in this unique case.

In a context ArbCom has created, it is seemly to adopt the words of ] as my own. Having been identified as a , ]'s words resist being devalued with ].

I adopt ]'s words as if they were my own:
:A. ] asserts, "I joined Misplaced Pages do improve its quality. I recognized it would be a slow process. It does not surprise me that it is not faster, and I thus have no reason to get angry because I had misjudged he difficulty. I am, however, beginning to get exasperated at those who would prevent me and the others from improving it." .]
:B. ] asserts, "We have serious content problems, but they to a considerable extent are inseparable from the inherent problems of any project like ours that operates without editorial control: the need for truly competent referencing, for understandable writing, for balance in coverage between and among articles, for avoiding promotionalism of people's individual viewpoints, and, more especially, the need to update every article in Misplaced Pages in a regular and reliable manner." .]
:C. ] asserts, "The only explanation I can come to is that <u>this is the unthinking reaction of people who recognize they have no hope of dealing with the real issues, and who are over-focussed on the mistakes they made in the past that permitted the out of control situation to develop</u>. It's right that our founder and the other long-term Wikipedians who started a project that that had inadequate standards should regret they did not insist on sourcing from the beginning--but their reaction is typical of those who try by harshness to make up for the sins of their childhood. <u>What I think is truly harmful is anything that discourages</u> ...." .]

]'s diff discourages me.

This is truly harmful when it is perceived as discouraging by others. --] (]) 18:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

: <b>]</b> -- ], this term is apt. The work completed thus far has been onerous and needlessly isolating.<p>Your newly contrived insistence on <u>hypothetical issues is divorced from anything to do with ] or ]</u>. This illustrates a story of ArbCom's self-created problems; and it becomes unseemly to ].<p>Some questions are unanswerable. No salutary purpose is served by further theorizing and indecision.<p><u>Bottom line</u>. I need to return to editing. No less important, <b>volunteer mentors need <u>your</u> ] and ] and ] along with mine</b>. --] (]) 03:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

====Response to SirFozzie &ndash; <big>]</big>====
The responses to ] + ] + ] + ] + ] are comprehensive and clear. This provides a context for what follows:

Your disheartening comment demands a response.

Please review the words which inform my participation in this long ArbCom ordeal. Like you, perhaps others who read this diff may not be familiar with what ] wrote in 2008, or they may have forgotten. I have adopted
as if it were my own. I believe that ArbCom needs:

:* More awareness of a growing issue that is poisoning the very essence of collaborative editing that makes Misplaced Pages possible: real-world factions that vie for control over articles, turning them into polemical battlegrounds where surface civility is used to cover bias, tendentiousness and even harassment. ArbCom needs to take a strong stance against that sort of "polite disruption" and those who use our rules of civility as weapons, recognize that long-term warriors are toxic, not vested, and investigate beyond surface behavior issues.

:* Less timidity in addressing issues related to contents (POV warring, tag teams, academic dishonesty). While it is appropriate that the Committee never rules on contents, it should be more active at curtailing content disputes. Academic integrity should become a priority; unlike "simple" incivility, the damage caused by editors misquoting, plagiarizing and editorializing destroys the credibility of our encyclopedia.

:* Increased transparency in the arbitration process, the Arbitrators must explain their decisions in better detail beyond a simple "aye/nay" and expose their reasoning and justification. It is important that the community understands why the Committee rules as it does, not just receive seemingly arbitrary edicts from "on high".

This thoughtful analysis also informs my point-of-view about the kinds of issues which are likely to arise in mentorship.

In the narrowed context of this "request for clarification" thread, it becomes timely to remind you of an observation attributed to ]:
:* "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." ()

], three salient points are suggested by your sentence: "At this point, I'm not sure any mentorship program will work, considering the difficulties to get to this point." I avoid ] by presenting my responsive comments in the following table format:
{{collapse top|'''Tenmei's sentences in table format'''}}
{|class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! width="3%" | #
! width="14%" | SirFozzie's sentence
! width="69%" | Tenmei's response
! width="14%" | Analysis
|-
!colspan="5"|''']? '''
|----
|1
|"At this point, I'm not sure...."
|I can do no better than to re-state what I explained succinctly almost a month ago: "At best, ]'s reasoning illustrates a ] which is inapposite in this unique case.
|ArbCom ]
|-
|2
|"...not sure any mentorship program will work"
|With one exception, ] will <u>not</u> work because of the ] ] at its heart. Mine is the one exception -- despite everything which has gone wrong.

The compounded ] are difficult to parse. ArbCom's ] observed: "And somehow I do not regard being condemned to work with me as a great punishment."
|ArbCom ]
|-
|3
|"...considering the difficulties to get to this point."
|Cumulative "difficulties" are primarily ArbCom-contrived ].

The most urgent of these fumbles is ArbCom's failure to honor volunteers who have allowed their names to be put forward for ArbCom confirmation. Their willingness and generosity is put into stark relief by this thread.

Their patience is emphasized in the contrast with those unidentified others who agreed to help me in a ] context, but who refused to be entangeled in an ArbCom-created ].
|ArbCom ]
|-
|}

{{collapse bottom}}

<u>Bottom line</u>. These specific <b>volunteer mentors deserve <u>your</u> ] and ] and ]</b>. This begs a number of questions only you can answer. --] (]) 19:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

==== Response to Herzfold &ndash; <big>]</big>====
The responses to ] + ] + ] + ] + ] + ] are comprehensive and clear. This provides a context for what follows:

]? What purpose is served by the context your diffs create?

The ] is a ] coined by economist ]
{{cquote2|The view that now pervades much public policy economics implicitly presents the relevant choice as between an ideal norm and an existing 'imperfect' institutional arrangement. This ''nirvana'' approach differs considerably from a ''comparative institution'' approach in which the relevant choice is between alternative real institutional arrangements.<br> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -- H. Demsetz, "Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint," <br> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ''Journal of Law and Economics'' 12 (April 1969): 1}}

:A related quotation from ] is:
::''Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien.''
::often translated as
:::''The perfect is the enemy of the good.''
:::though literally
::::''The better is the enemy of the good.''
::::: &mdash; "]" (]).

;]?
As a general rule, asking about a potential "Plan B" is conventional and prudent; but it is another ] in the context of today's thread.

The ] in this ArbCom ordeal are plain.

The "correct" thing to do is not to respond &mdash; but this is also the "wrong" thing to do.

The concerns and reservations raised in this thread are addressed in different ways by each of the mentors. For today, your questions become a kind of ] except for this:
::<u>Comment from ]</u>: ... 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.

Each member of the Arbitration Committee should to construe ]'s words as a justifiable criticism of ]s in ArbCom-approved ] ]. I was able to pursuaede ] to step forward; and this modest achievement was undermined. ArbCom ] by effectively persuading ] to withdraw.

]?

<u>Bottom line</u>. These specific <b>volunteer mentors deserve <u>your</u> ] and ] and ]</b>. This begs a number of questions only you can answer. --] (]) 16:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

=== Statement by other user ===
<!-- Leave this section for others to add additional statements -->

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.] (] · ] · ]) 22:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC) (jmh649)

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? --''']''' ''(] | ])'' 04:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

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. ···]<sup>]</sup> · <small><font color="blue">]</font> · ]</small> 20:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

::Tenmei has not made an article edit for three months 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.] (] · ] · ]) 07:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm continuing to provide Tenmei with advice by email as I had offered . <span style="color:Purple; font-size:15pt;">☺</span>] (]) 17:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
: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. <span style="color:Red; font-size:19pt;">☺</span>] (]) 19:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

::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.] (] · ] · ]) 04:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

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. ''']''' (]) 20:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

::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.] (] · ] · ]) 02:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

:::But I agree that we should hammer something out before we move forwards.] (] · ] · ]) 05:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to assisst Tenmei in oversighting his edits. ] <sup>(], ])</sup> 13:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

* So what's happening now? --''']''' ''(] | ])'' 07:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

* 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. ] (]) 04:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

====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 Misplaced Pages, 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. ···]<sup>]</sup> · <small><font color="blue">]</font> · ]</small> 20:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

====Comment from Taivo====
It has been said that Misplaced Pages too easily devolves into a MMORPG. These arbitration actions seem to cross the line more easily than other Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages.
*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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages editors will do exactly the same thing in any content dispute. While his expertise would be a great contribution to Misplaced Pages, he is unable to communicate it to the typical Misplaced Pages 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. (] (]) 22:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC))

====Comment from ]====

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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 00:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

====Comment from ]====
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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

--] (]) 00:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

==== Comment from ] ====

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:

# '''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.
# '''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 ] being followed here; we try not to contradict each other.
# '''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? --''']''' ''(] | ])'' 04:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
====Note from ]====
Note that ] (]) 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. <span style="color:Orangered; font-size:19pt;">☺</span>] (]) 16:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

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

;Response to ]: 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 ] that have turned out very well, and I believe that this can continue. However, we are mentors for ], 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.''' ] <sup>(], ])</sup> 10:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


====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. ] (] · ] · ]) 10:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

=== 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 ], ], ], and ]), 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. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 18:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
:So done. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(] • ] • ])''</small></font> 19:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

=== 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. ] (]) 22:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
:*This looks to be at least worth a shot. ] (]) 01:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
*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. &mdash;&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 00:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
*I also welcome suggestions from the suggested mentors about how this will work in practise. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 05:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
*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. ] (]) 05:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
:*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. ] (]) 03:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
*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. ] (]) 13:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
**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 ] 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. ] (]) 19:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
***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. ] (]) 03:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
:At this point, I'm not sure any mentorship program will work, considering the difficulties to get to this point. ] (]) 15:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
*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? ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 19:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
:*'''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. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 19:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
----

Latest revision as of 05:38, 15 December 2024

Shortcut Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024
Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131
Categories: