Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Enkyo2 (talk | contribs) at 19:27, 26 April 2010 (→Response to Shell — Give it some time?: and what precisely am I being punished for?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:27, 26 April 2010 by Enkyo2 (talk | contribs) (→Response to Shell — Give it some time?: and what precisely am I being punished for?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) 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
Request name Motions  Case Posted
] none none 18 April 2010
] none none 15 April 2010
] none none 18 February 2010
Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

Requests for clarification

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

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

Statement by NuclearWarfare

Moreschi, acting under the discretionary sanctions authorized under Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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  03:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • 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  12:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • 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 06:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
  • 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)

Request for clarification: user:sulmues

Initiated by Sulmues talk at 20:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

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


Statement by sulmues

I am topic banned from Kosovo per this. I am respecting my topic ban but I was involved in edits in Burrel today (4/15/2010) (see ), removing a primary source that involved the city and also getting into a discussion in the talk page. My edits were in good faith because Burrel is under the Albania Task Force, not under Kosovo, but since the interpretation of the topic ban can be enlarged, I am going to stop from making any edits that even remotely concern Kosovo.

Is there anything else I should do? Also, since my ban will expire on 5/27/2010 and I have always been compliant with the ban, could the ban be possibly lifted? Please clarify. Thank you! --Sulmues talk 20:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Results by Jehochman

I agree to take over Moreschi's role here.

I have reviewed sulmues' block log and the arbitration enforcement log. Since the six month topic ban was applied, sulmues subsequently received a civility restriction, a 96 hour block, a 21 day block, and finally a one week block on January 26, 2010. The good behavior has lasted less than three months at this point. I think there is an excessive risk of further blocks if the topic ban is lifted now.

Sulmues, thank you for the improvements you appear to have made in recent months. You're on the right track. Your blocks occurred during the period August 2009 to January 2010. Habits, both good and bad, are formed by practice. I'd like to see you maintain a clear block log for longer than five months before relaxing your restrictions. Jehochman 09:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I see the topic ban was imposed by User:Moreschi who has not edited since 8 February 2010 (I presume you did try asking Moreschi first?). Suggest that going to WP:AE and finding another admin to take over the topic ban and answer your questions is the more "correct" route here. Only if that fails, would you need to take it to us (ArbCom). As a general principle, I'm not opposed to the lifting of topic bans (or any sanctions) early for 'good behaviour', but there need to be clear statements by other editors saying that they have not seen any problems and that your conduct has been productive, or someone needs to be willing to briefly check your contributions and block log before such a lifting of the topic ban is considered. Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with Carcharoth. In general I dislike giving good-faith requests the runaround by shunting them to another subsection of arbitration, but the administrators who work on enforcement would probably be able to advise whether there have been problems here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I think Jehochman has some good advice here. You're back on the right path - give it some time before immersing yourself in a difficult environment again. Shell 06:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Tang Dynasty

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

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

Statement by Tenmei

ArbCom decisions in December set in motion a slow process which now calls for further ArbCom action.
ArbCom's Strategic default?
Instead,
ArbCom snatches defeat from the jaws of victory ....
Relevant excerpts from amended remedies include:
1.1) Tenmei is restricted as follows:
(A) Tenmei is topic-banned from Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty for a period of six months, to begin when a mentor is located and approved by the Committee. He is permitted to comment on the talkpage, so long as he does so in a civil fashion .... (underline emphasis added)
Passed 10 to 0, 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC), amended as indicated with italics 8 to 0, 02:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
3.1) Tenmei shall be assigned is required to have one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary. While Tenmei is without a mentor, Tenmei is prohibited from contributing except for the purpose of communicating with potential mentors ....
Passed 10 to 0, 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC), amended as indicated with italics 8 to 0, 02:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
3.2) The mentor must be publicly identified, and willing to make themselves available for other editors to contact them publicly or privately.
Passed 8 to 0, 02:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom remedies required that I locate a mentor or mentors. This is a list of volunteers:

ArbCom's Strategic default?
ArbCom "approval" or confirmation is anticipated.
A. No procedure tells me how to elicit ArbCom "approval" or confirmation. If mailing the list to ArbCom members individually and posting the list at WP:AC/CN is sufficient, good. If not, what alternative action is preferred?
B. No protocols explain how these mentors will know that he/she has been approved or confirmed. If it is sufficient for someone to post "approved" after each name listed at WP:AC/CN or here, good. If not, what alternative action is preferred?
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?
D. If this is not the correct venue to address these matters, what venue is preferred?
According to the Misplaced Pages 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
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)
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 Misplaced Pages community. --Tenmei (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

Response to Steve Smith

ArbCom's Strategic default?
Each name is presented for individual confirmation as an independent mentor. They will function as co-mentors in the flexible manner which appears to be playing out amongst those who are working with Mattisse. Some have agreed to participate only on condition that he/she is part of a group, e.g.,
Anticipating time constraints and other burdens, McDoobAU93 asked specifically, "How available will ... co-mentors need to be?" My response summarizes a fundamental assumption: "I anticipate that everyone's availability will vary and that the interest in issues which arise will also vary. To the extent that I can exert control over any situation, I project that no issue involving me will be limited or burdened with time constraints. I predict that, in general, only one or two at any one time will be involved in any one issue/dispute/event/topic, etc."
Another relevant factor is suggested by threads at Misplaced Pages talk:Mentorship: I was alarmed to read about situations in which mentors confronted role-related abuse; and I won't be alone in defending those whose only motivation is benevolent.
In the planning period, I learned tangentially from teachable moments which arose as these mentors worked with each other, reinforcing a comment or observation with different words or a slightly different emphasis.
The group also encompasses non-public advisors who remain unidentified. In the preliminary period of organizing, an anonymous leader was pivotal in the process of distilling a plan drafted to be less than 200 words; and in this context, Taivo's comments about counting words were rephrased and refocused by Leujohn. Although unconventional in this ArbCom setting, the word counting illustrates an arguably constructive experiment already initiated by the Mentorship Committee. --Tenmei (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Bottom line. Please do not undervalue a core factor affecting the prospective success of wiki-mentorship -- that
Volunteer mentors need your support .... --Tenmei (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
and encouragement and thanks along with mine. Tenmei 03:08, 15 March 2010

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?
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)

Response to Coren

ArbCom's Strategic default?
John Carter is the only one of us with wiki-mentoring experience. He has been off-wiki since late December; and it is unlikely that he will be able to add his voice here. A brief note from SatuSuro here suggests that computer-hardware problems may explain and excuse this absence. I urge confirmation or "approval" as a mentor in anticipation of his return.
You will know that John Carter is one of Mattisse's mentors. His early advice was informed by what seemed to have worked well in that unique setting. For example, User talk:Tenmei/Sub-page Alerts and User:Tenmei/Sub-page Alerts were created as a result of his suggestions.
John Carter's early involvement doubtless influenced others in their willingness to join my mentorship group. For example, when Taivo agreed to join, he wrote, " ... if I read correctly, John Carter has volunteered to be a part. He is a very good editor and will be a good member of the mentorship committee." --Tenmei (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
In the contexts of RogerDavies' question and Risker's question below, it seems timely to recite something Coren explained in an e-mail: "Actually, mentorship is exactly what it says on the tin: good counsel ... experienced editor familiar with the intricacies of how Misplaced Pages works." --Tenmei (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Bottom line. Please do what you can to ensure that your colleagues do not overlook an essential factor -- that


Volunteer mentors need your support .... --Tenmei (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
and encouragement and thanks along with mine Tenmei 03:10, 15 March 2010

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?
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)

Response to RogerDavies

ArbCom's Strategic default?

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


Principles. In circumstances which are impossible to foretell, the analysis of mentors functioning in a monitor-like role will be informed by principles adduced in the Tang Dynasty case; that is, ensuring the purpose of creating "a high-quality free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among editors." (See Principle 1, "Purpose of Misplaced Pages") This means that "the reliability and accuracy 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 reliable source 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")
Remedies. Consistent with the remedies ArbCom has mandated, the mentors are "publicly identified, and willing to make themselves available for other editors to contact them publicly or privately." (See Remedy 3.2, "Tenmei Restricted") For redundant clarity, ArbCom has said the same thing in different words -- that "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-English language sources")
Non-English language. Preliminary decisions in Tang Dynasty inform expectations about which may become problematic in the future. e.g.,
  • "... Some of the issues may be a bit complicated and/or require a bit of expert assistance, but in the scheme of things that can be said about quite a large portion of the topics we cover. I'd encourage ... seek out the input of one or more uninvolved Chinese-speaking editors." — Vassyana 05:49, 24 March 2009
  • "Some input from a Chinese-speaking administrator or experienced editor on the sourcing/verifiability and related issues might be helpful here." — Newyorkbrad 03:48, 19 March 2009
  • "I'm going to second that request from an uninvolved Chinese-literate editor; it does appear that any case would revolve around the sources, and a good interpretation of them appears indispensable. — Coren 00:40, 20 March 2009
  • "I think Wikisource can be of assistance here as a scratch pad to record the sources 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." — John Vandenberg 00:20, 26 March 2009
  • "I see that we are stuck here. Has any Chinese-speaking editor who would help been found?" — FayssalF 18:46, 25 March 2009
Leujohn is Chinese, living in Hong Kong; and if he should be unavailable, Penwhale has agreed here to assist the mentors as needed. An anonymous Korean-literate editor has agreed to assist the mentors if asked to do so. In addition, other East Asian language resources will be developed over the coming weeks, so that the potential range of back-up sought by the mentors will have depth.
Communciation. The Mentorship Committee exists to help ameliorate communication-problems and/or to mitigate communication-barriers, e.g.,
  • "When an editor's input is consistently unclear or difficult to follow, the merits of his or her position may not be fully understood by those reading the communication."
  • "An editor's failure to communicate concerns with sufficient clarity, conciseness and succinctness, or with insufficient attention to detail, or failure to focus on the topic being discussed, can impede both collaborative editing and dispute resolution."
To this end, ArbCom-approved "public" mentors will be available to help editors recognise communication-related issues and to encourage "steps to address the problems." (See Principle 6, "Communication").
From time to time, Nihonjoe's background in East Asian matters may be helpful for the mentors. Taivo's professional and scholarly background in language and linguistics may prove to be useful to the mentors. Other area-related or subject-related expertise can be developed when the mentors perceive the need for other context-related back-up.
Working venues. As a result of John Carter's suggestions (developed from what seemed effective or useful in Mattisse's mentoring process), the following a bold orange Notice/navagation bar was posted near the top of the page at User talk:Tenmei:
Mentorship Committee – for issues requiring mentors' involvement, → → → → click HERE
This notice bar links to User talk:Tenmei/Sub-page Alerts. The "public" mentors are identified on this "Alerts" page. Links to their talk pages and links to e-mail are posted. Instructions about how to use this alternate venue are provided; and a suggested format is offered for those who may want to make use of it. Principles and remedies adduced in Tang Dynasty are made specific and tangible in this on-wiki venue.
In addition, private e-mail communication between members of the Mentorship Committee is enhanced by off-wiki mentoring sites which have been established at Google Groups, Google Docs and Google Wave.
Other mentors or advisors. If other "public" mentors are to be added, the names can be submitted for ArbCom confirmation. in a manner similar to this thread Additional advisors or non-public mentors will be added in a manner which the Mentorship Committee deems appropriate and convenient. Such additional names will be made public or kept confidential depending on individual preferences.
WP:TL;DR. If this response is deemed too long, I am ready to strike any parts which are considered superfluous or unwanted. I prepared this without consulting anyone else; and therefore, I remain solely responsible for any flaws. --Tenmei (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Bottom line. Please do not overlook the crucial factor which makes this workable --


Volunteer mentors need your support .... --Tenmei (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
and encouragement and thanks along with mine Tenmei 03:12, 15 March 2010

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?
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)

Response to Risker – Moving the goalposts

Moving the goalposts
Risker's enquiry strays outside the scope of A + B + C; and in this way, it becomes like a bridge too far.
A. ArbCom told me to locate a mentor or mentors.
Yes — I did just that.
B. ArbCom explained that Tenmei is "required to have one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary."
Yes — the volunteers are ready to do just that.
C. Risker's questions are like bait-and-switch.
No — paraphrasing Coren's words: "... mentorship is exactly what it says on the tin: good counsel ... 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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

In June 2009, FloNight restated ArbCom's objectives:

A. rbitration requires that you work with one or more users to help you communicate better and gain a better understanding of how to work through editing disputes.
B. Speaking on behalf of the members of the Committee that I directly talked with about your participation in the dispute and the case, I say that we very much do appreciate that you have legitimate concerns and questions.
C. The main issue continues to be that your style of communication is a barrier to you working collaboratively with other people.
D. You need to focus on changing the things that you can change.
E. ur interest is not in criticizing you but finding ways to enable you to better edit the encyclopedia. There is a general view that when you get into editing conflicts that your communication style makes it difficult for you to work through the issue. Our goal is to assist you in working that problem.

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

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

WP:TL;DR. If this response is deemed too long, I am ready to strike any parts which are considered superfluous or unwanted. I prepared this without consulting anyone else; and therefore, I remain solely responsible for any flaws. --Tenmei (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
At best, Risker's reasoning illustrates a perfect solution fallacy which is inapposite in this unique case. --Tenmei (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Tenmei's sentences in table format
What respects volunteers?
# Tenmei's sentences Core issues Comment
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
easy & effective
2 Risker's questions are not easy; and whatever time volunteers might invest in answering would likely produce little more than ineffective guesswork. hypotheticals are unproductive

time sink

Moving the goalposts

ArbCom snatches defeat from the jaws of victory

3 In part, mentorship was proposed by ArbCom as a remedy because, "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". re-defining problem set to match available tools is process-driven rather than results-driven Moving the goalposts

ArbCom snatches defeat from the jaws of victory

4 In contrast, the wide-ranging search for volunteers ensured that a broad range of tools are available. practical & specific focal point
5 In part, the group-structure was necessitated by the problems which flow from the ArbCom neologism; and this explains why my Mentorship Committee is comprised of (a) "mentors", as described at Misplaced Pages:Mentorship#Involuntary mentorship; and (b) "mentors", as conventionally understood and described at Mentorship. • neologism = ArbCom "mentor"

• ArbCom "mentor" = oxymoron

Moving the goalposts

ArbCom snatches defeat from the jaws of victory

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

• "Yes" to investing limited time in meaningful activity

Moving the goalposts

ArbCom snatches defeat from the jaws of victory

7 I construe my responsibilities to "keep my eye on the ball" -- which means paying attention to a changing focal point which encompasses each person’s expectation of what the other expects him to expect to be expected to do. practical & specific focal point
What is the main thing?
# Tenmei's sentences Core issues Comments
WHAT IS THE MAIN THING?
1 At User talk:FloNight#Tenmei's mentor, the main objective was clarified: "... a mentor is like a coach mostly." mentor is like a coach mostly
2 In this explicit context, words from the userpage of Kraftlos offer a succinct response to Risker's three questions and any corollaries: The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. The main thing is
to keep the main thing
the main thing. 		Moving the goalposts

ArbCom snatches defeat from the jaws of victory

3 In June 2009, FloNight restated ArbCom's objectives: 2009 goals ≠ 2010 objectives;
incongruent miss-match 		Moving the goalposts

ArbCom snatches defeat from the jaws of victory

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 focal point
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 focal point
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 focal point
9 Now is the time to let these volunteer mentors get to work. practical & specific focal point Moving the goalposts

ArbCom snatches defeat from the jaws of victory

Reinventing the wheel.
# Tenmei's sentences Core issues Comments
REINVENTING THE WHEEL?
1 As FloNight explained in June 2009, "... if mentors see a new problem they can make it clear to him that they will tell us so that we can promptly handle it. This approach usually works best." simple planning to work through issues as they arise Moving the goalposts

ArbCom snatches defeat from the jaws of victory

2 As succinctly expressed by SMcCandlish here, " ...this is encyclopedia-bulding project, not an experiment in virtual governance ...." • editing articles ≠ community-building

• editing articles ≠ MMORPG

Moving the goalposts

ArbCom snatches defeat from the jaws of victory

# Tenmei's sentences Core issues Comments
At best, Risker's reasoning illustrates a perfect solution fallacy which is inapposite in this unique case. perfect solution fallacy Moving the goalposts

ArbCom snatches defeat from the jaws of victory

# Tenmei's sentences Core issues Comments
Bottom line. Please do not forget that volunteer mentors need your support and encouragement and thanks along with mine. volunteers need support and encouragement and thanks Moving the goalposts

ArbCom snatches defeat from the jaws of victory


Bottom line. Please do not forget that
Volunteer mentors need your support .... --Tenmei (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
and encouragement and thanks along with mine. Tenmei (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2010

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?
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)

Response to Carcharoth – Raising the bar

Raising the bar

The responses to Steve Smith + Coren + Roger Davies + Risker are comprehensive and clear. Carcharoth's words are like raising the bar, which here takes the form of "feature creep" as objectives are redefined. According to the Misplaced Pages 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.

At best, Carcharoth's reasoning illustrates a perfect solution fallacy which is inapposite in this unique case.

In a context ArbCom has created, it is seemly to adopt the words of DGG as my own.

Having been identified as a "suitable mentor", DGG's words resist being devalued
with WP:TLDR.
I adopt DGG's words as if they were my own:
A. Tenmei 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. Tenmei 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. Tenmei asserts,
  • The only explanation I can come to is that 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.
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.
  • What I think is truly harmful is anything that discourages
...."

Carcharoth's diff discourages me.

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

Time sink -- Carcharoth, this term is apt. The work completed thus far has been onerous and needlessly isolating.

Your newly contrived insistence on hypothetical issues is divorced from anything to do with Misplaced Pages:Mentorship or Mentorship. This illustrates a story of ArbCom's self-created problems; and it becomes unseemly to pass the buck.

Some questions are unanswerable. No salutary purpose is served by further theorizing and indecision.

Bottom line. I need to return to editing. No less important,
Volunteer mentors need your support .... --Tenmei (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
and encouragement and thanks along with mine. Tenmei 03:02, 15 March 2010

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?
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)

Response to SirFozzie – Extending a finish line

Extending a finish line
The responses to Steve Smith + Coren + Roger Davies + Risker + Carcharoth 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 Coren wrote in 2008, or they may have forgotten. I have adopted Coren's analysis 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 Margaret Mead:
SirFozzie, 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 WP:TL;DR by presenting my responsive comments in the following table format:
Tenmei's sentences in table format
# SirFozzie's sentence Tenmei's response Analysis
Extending a finish line?
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, Carcharoth's reasoning illustrates a perfect solution fallacy which is inapposite in this unique case. Causing unintended consequences

ArbCom snatches defeat from the jaws of victory

2 "...not sure any mentorship program will work" With one exception, WP:Mentorship#Involuntary mentorship will not work because of the oxymoron neologism at its heart. Mine is the one exception -- despite everything which has gone wrong.

The compounded logical fallacies are difficult to parse. ArbCom's "suitable mentor" DGG observed: "And somehow I do not regard being condemned to work with me as a great punishment."

Causing unintended consequences

ArbCom snatches defeat from the jaws of victory

3 "...considering the difficulties to get to this point." Cumulative "difficulties" are primarily ArbCom-contrived fumbles.

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 mentorship context, but who refused to be entangeled in an ArbCom-created time sink.

Causing unintended consequences

ArbCom snatches defeat from the jaws of victory

Bottom line. These specific


Volunteer mentors need your support .... --Tenmei (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
and encouragement and thanks. This begs a number of questions only you can answer. Tenmei 19:31, 9 April 2010

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?
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)

Response to Hersfold – Changing the terms

Changing the terms
The responses to Steve Smith + Coren + Roger Davies + Risker + Carcharoth + SirFozzie are comprehensive and clear. This provides a context for what follows:
Cui bono? What purpose is served by the context your diffs create?
The nirvana fallacy is a neologism coined by economist Harold Demsetz
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.
      -- H. Demsetz, "Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint,"
          Journal of Law and Economics 12 (April 1969): 1
A related quotation from Voltaire 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.
— "La Bégueule" (1772).
Plan B?
As a general rule, asking about a potential "Plan B" is conventional and prudent; but it is another bridge too far in the context of today's thread.
The lessons learned the hard way in this ArbCom ordeal are plain.
The "correct" thing to do is not to respond — 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 red herring except for this:

Comment from Robofish: ... 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 Robofish's words as a justifiable criticism of logical errors in ArbCom-approved mentorship schema. I was able to pursuaede Robofish to step forward; and this modest achievement was undermined. ArbCom snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by effectively persuading Robofish to withdraw.

Cui bono?

Bottom line. These specific
Volunteer mentors need your support.... --Tenmei (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
and encouragement and thanks. This begs a number of questions only you can answer. Tenmei 16:56, 10 April 2010

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?
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)

Response to Newyorkbrad — Runaround?

Your comment here in Request for clarification: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 is relevant in this Tang Dynasty thread: You explained that "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 Misplaced Pages 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 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)

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?
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)

Response to Shell — Give it some time?

Shell Kinney -- Your comment here in Request for clarification: Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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?
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)

Statement by other user

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

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)

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)

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.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm continuing to provide Tenmei with advice by email as I had offered here. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 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. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 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.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 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. DGG ( talk ) 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.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
But I agree that we should hammer something out before we move forwards.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to assisst Tenmei in oversighting his edits. Leujohn 13:53, 16 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. Ncmvocalist (talk) 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. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 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. (Taivo (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC))

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 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. Robofish (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

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 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.

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

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)

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)

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 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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Is arbcomm waiting for anything further? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:48, 22 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 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 18:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
So done. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 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. Steve Smith (talk) 22:48, 18 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. — Coren  00:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I also welcome suggestions from the suggested mentors about how this will work in practise.  Roger Davies 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. Risker (talk) 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. Risker (talk) 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. Carcharoth (talk) 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 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)
      • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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 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. Hersfold 19:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)