Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statements from uninvolved editors at case opening

[edit]

Statement by Til Eulenspiegel

[edit]

I was requested to comment. My only encounter with User:Tenmei is at Talk:Salting the earth which he filled with bizarre proposals to merge that article with "Asia during the Tang Dynasty" or whatever it is. There is no mention in the article Salting the earth whatsoever of the Tang Dynasty, nor has he made clear any context for merging these two unrelated articles. Because of the lack of context, I took this as disruptive and deleted most of his lengthy additions to the talkpage. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Yaan

[edit]

I think there are two somewhat separate problems here. One is that there is some trolling going on by an anonymous IP (the one who created the article in the first place). I think previous statements of this IP are clear enough to rule out WP:AGF, even if some editors in the AfD discussion did think otherwise.

The other problem is that the academic credentials of the source used by User:Teeninvestor are unclear and that Teeninvestor has made no attempt to deal with this. Maybe because both Teeninvestor and Tenmei were a bit too involved in their conflict to clear this isssue up. I am aware this is a problem of a lot of WP articles, but I think it really is the burden of the contributor who introduces a source to give evidence why it is relevant, at least in the case of disputes. I don't really think Teeninvestor is misrepresenting his source, certainly not consciously. But that still leaves open the question who the authors of his source are: amateur historians, local politicians, or maybe experts who studied Central Asia in the 7th century for all their life? It is also unclear what kind of source is used, secondary or tertiary. I don't think asking for clarifications on that matter and treating stuff as unsourced if no clarification is forthcoming is inappropriate. Yaan (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Caspian blue

[edit]

I will leave my opinion for arbitrators to figure out what is a problem and "who are the involved parties". First, this can be shown as a nationalistic dispute between China and Mongol, or a failure to abide by principle rules such as WP:Edit war, WP:AGF, WP:Civil, WP:NPA, WP:Own, WP:V, etc. But the request may be a due course because nothing was sorted out after tendentious edit warring and disruption were happening since the creation of the article. Tenmei and Teeninvester both violated 3RR (4RR ~ 6RR), but no admin did enforce to them for probably the lengthy, and weird report.

The selection of the involved editors are also odd and totally excludes Mongolian editors and others who actively participated in this dispute such as Gantuya eng (talk · contribs)[1], GenuineMongol (talk · contribs)[2], and G Purevdorj (talk · contribs)[3] (see: AFD). All of three should appear here to give their opinion as the "involved party" for ArbCom to decide whether to pursue to the case. In fact, Kraftlos, PericlesofAthens, and Arilang1234 were not involved at all, but the latter two just came to give "3rd opinion" per Teeninvest's request to turn down the flame for his stance[4][5]. Though the two are members of WP:WikiProject China and colleagues of Tenninvester. The meditation attempt was failed because of Teeninvester's unwillingness and Tenmei's failure to communicate civilly. So at least, RFC/3O/Mediation were tried except RFC/U before the request.

It should be noted that the creator of the article, Sarsfs (talk · contribs) and NYC Verizon anons[6] are likely a sock of banned troll, ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who has caused "big troubles" to East Asian subjects and harassed editors.[7] Given the extreme Pro-Han Chinese agenda[8], abusive sockpuppeter (over 200 socks), and harassment, I don't think he gives up appearing to the article(see:1, 2, 3, 4, 5 6)

As for the contested Chinese books, I can confirm notability of only one book, Outlines of the History of the Chinese ISBN 7538700420 written by Bo Yang who was a very famous Taiwanese author with a radical political view. Translated versions of the book are sold in other countries.([9]review) However, the problem is lied in the other book "5000 years of Chinese history" (中华五千年) written by Li Bo and Zheng Yin, that is primarily used for Teeninvester's claimed contents. I can't find any review nor information from "reliable news or sites" in any language except advertising sites. The two authors do not seem like notable too according to g-hits/books/scholar/news. I doubt that Nlu would help out because he does not seem to care about nationalistic feuds, and tends to use just Chinese primary sources for his articles.

Plus, everyone point finger at each other's behaviors on the article and AfD (eg. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) so I recommend Arbitrators to look into both content disputes and behaviors of the involved editors if you take the case. I doubt that this dispute can be resolved in other venues(WP:ANI/WP:RSN/WP:WQA) because of the sock's constant trolling, the involved editors' too long-winged and endless arguments, dismissals to the request for verifying sources, ensuing disruptions to other articles and bickering each other as well as edit wars.--Caspian blue 22:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gun Powder Ma

[edit]
Clerk note: moved from arbitrator-only section. Daniel (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Several users have been notified of this debate to "help with this dispute": Example and overview Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

View by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

[edit]

I consider that despite there being clear claims that problem editing is occurring, the attempts at dispute resolution have been inadequate. Yes, RfC/U (like all other conduct parts of our DR system) would be a waste of time here. However, the fact that mediation fails does not mean that article RfC has also - and I see no justification to avoid trying this avenue before trying other avenues to get sanctions.

One of the biggest issues with accepting a case prematurely is this: ArbCom will consider things that shouldn't be considered when looking for sanctions at this point. Things aren't done as they should be by editors heavily involved in a dispute for a variety of reasons, and things aren't as they appear (eg; edit-summaries aren't accurate to the t, some things that needn't have been reverted end up reverted, accusations are thrown around, etc. etc. - but these are relatively minor costs that should be given an allowance, if and when there are strong attempts to attack the larger issue of the problem editing).

Unfortunately, this makes it very difficult to know when such attempts are being made, or in distinguishing between the problem editor and the editor who just needs a lot more time to get settled with certain conventions (like editing with a cooler head). Unfortunately, poor decisions can also emerge. Problem editors may do just enough to end up with no to light sanctions, compared to the editor who actually was combatting a much bigger problem to help the more important quality of the project. I would rather not make the decision until there is enough to at least have a better chance of getting to the right overall outcome. Even I am having trouble making some of the more complex distinctions right now.

I am appreciative of the proportion who voted to accept to address problem editing, among other issues. That is certainly what I would want usually. But I agree with Sam's last sentence. And as for the reasons specified as to why this dispute cannot be resolved in other venues (which may usually justify acceptance), true resolution cannot be found by accepting an arbcom case at this point. I do not want to see editors sanctioned or banned when they shouldn't be, and I don't want the opposite of this to happen either. I'm lost as to where this will go when enough distinctions are still unclear.

Letting the dispute continue without intervention would certainly let it fester some more, but it may be the only way here: other avenues need to be exhausted so that, hopefully, a clearer picture can be painted on all those involved. In the interests of ensuring we don't punish or lose really valuable contributors (who wade into waters that some others would stay away from), my view is that the case needs to be declined for now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Penwhale

[edit]

I suppose I could point out a few things. In the JQCQ link to the book, there was no author listed; the names listed were rather translators. I personally have some issue with the description of the book given by the site, however; 爱国主义 means nationalism/patriotism, and the two volumes only cover up to the First Opium War (meaning it does not cover anything post-Qing Dynasty. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 22:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to above comment

[edit]

What is more troubling is that depending on usage, 爱国主义 could also mean jingoism. In addition, while looking at the userpages, User:Teeninvestor is a Chinese, while User:Tenmei is heavily involved in Japanese articles. This could be a point of contention. SYSS Mouse (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: Tang Dynasty

[edit]

Initiated by Tenmei (talk) at 00:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Tang Dynasty arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Principles -- The procedure by which the principles were developed was arbitrary & unclear; and despite my explaining more than once that the outcome was not understood, no follow-up ensued and I was told simply to wait.
  2. Finding -- The process by which the findings were adduced was arbitrary & unclear; and despite my explaining more than once that the outcome was not understood, no follow-up ensued and I was told simply to wait.
  3. Remedy -- How the remedies were contrived doesn't matter to me; however, what does matter is that despite my explaining more than once that the outcome was not understood, no follow-up ensued and I was told simply to wait. Now, to my bitter surprise, John Vandenberg declares my words "inflammatory" in the edit summary which accompanied the deletion of the Restatement's addenda here.
Talk:Order of Culture#Restatement
My contributions to this not-very-complicated thread have been informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point in a predicatbly escalating drama:
  • 1. What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
  • 2. What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does each cited source reflect that consensus?
  • 3. Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
  • 4. Are unsourced assertions being used?
Can't we agree that this provides a commonly accepted foundation for our work together. --Tenmei (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addenda: President Obama's remarks in Beijing were filmed by China Central Television and excerpts were re-broadcast. In my view, a paraphrase of one paragraph would seem constructive in the context created by Dekimasu's comment below. Obama observed, "There is a Chinese proverb: Consider the past, and you shall know the future. Surely, we have known setbacks and challenges ... [but] the notion that we must be adversaries is not predestined -- not when we consider the past .... build[ing] upon our mutual interests, and engag[ing] on the basis of mutual respect." [emphasis added]
-- The White House, Office of the Press Secretary: "Remarks by President Barak Obama at Town Hall Meeting with Future Chinese Leaders, Museum of Science and Technology, Shanghai, China," November 16, 2009.
Caspian blue -- I wonder if a 19th century, American-English idiomatic phrase may be helpful here? a step in a constructive direction? I wonder if it might be seen as ameliorative to state bluntly that you are barking up the wrong tree. --Tenmei (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also Barking up the wrong tree.--Tenmei (talk) 06:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of "Involved parties" (permanent link)
  1. Tenmei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
  2. Teeninvestor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. Kraftlos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  4. PericlesofAthens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  5. Arilang1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Confirmation that the "involved parties" are aware of this request
Confirmation that other contributors to Evidence or Workshop pages are also aware

Amend this case by annulment

[edit]

Statement by Tenmei

[edit]
  • A. This case was renamed "Tang Dynasty" for ArbCom's convenience only. I projected that the consequences would become unworkable, as I tried to clarify in in a response to John Vandenberg before the case was accepted here:
The issues here are quickly devalued and the focus is easily distracted. This is evidenced by Teeninvestor's hollow POV-argument below and in that argument's tentative acceptance by Wizardman, who seems initially inclined to construe a "content dispute" in the empty sound of one hand clapping.
In this Euler diagram, "A"=article and/or non-English language text and "B"=Wikipedia policy which provides a context in which the article is created.
In this alternate diagram, "A"=article and/or non-English language text and "B"=Wikipedia policy which provides a context in which the article is created.

Issues #1, #2 and #3 do happen to involve a Chinese language text, but the disruptive views which are affirmed below by Teeninvestor are independent of any specific content or language. In the narrow context of the three inter-related issues, the presumed need for a "Chinese-literate" consultant would seem unjustified; and yet, Newyorkbrad and Coren both endorse this notion.

Opinions such as these demonstrate that, despite its obvious clumsiness, the unconventional composite "Verifiability/Use English/Burdens" does need to remain part of the title in order to underscore explicit non-content-related issues. For redundant clarity, I intend that "Verifiability"=WP:Verifiability; "Use English:=WP:Verifiability#Sources (Non-English sources); and "Burden"=WP:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. No one disputes that my wording is awkward, but the development of this thread reveals that Issues #1, #2 and #3 are readily conflated with distracting corollary matters.
In view of what others have posted, I endorse changing the title to read
Verifiability/Use English/Burdens conflated with content issues
In this analysis of Issues #1, #2 and #3, there is no opportunity to perceive a content-specific POV. Nor is there anything to do with WP:NPOV. Nor does it matter whether Teeninvestor's proffered text was published in Urdu, Wolof, Navajo or Chinese. I'm mindful of Wikipedia:Silence and consensus; but my restraint in responding thus far should not be taken to imply qui tacet consentire videtur ("He who remains silent is understood to consent"). --Tenmei (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • B. This case evolved into a Gordian Knot, which ArbCom only made worse as too many disparate issues were conflated. The procedural flaws rendered meaningless whatever procedures normally apply in other cases:
  • Clerks answered no questions about (a) the locus of dispute, (b) the names of the parties, nor (c) the procedures; nor were alternate procedures for seeking clarification proposed or permitted
  • ArbCom responded to no motion proposed by the parties in order to clarify the locus of dispute and the parties (a) the locus of dispute, (b) the names of the parties, nor (c) the procedures; nor were alternate procedures for seeking clarification proposed or permitted.
  • ArbCom and the parties explicitly identified problems in understanding Tenmei's contributions to evidence, workshop and proposed decision pages; but no alternate pre-decisional procedures for seeking clarification were proposed or permitted. Even as core issues moved towards resolution here, ArbCom snatched failure from the jaws of success, e.g.,
Summarizing "more or less the entire dispute"
Teeninvestor's summary and questions at User talk:Newyorkbrad deserve special emphasis. They serve as demonstrable proof that our non-standard ArbCom case has been a constructive exercise.

In this diff (16 May), the work invested in ArbCom evidence and workshop pages is shown to have been worthwhile.

In the ArbCom process, Teeninvestor's conception of the issues has been distilled to produce these few sentences:

"[C]an I ask you a policy question relating to this case. User:Tenmei seems to claim that citing your sources does not make you comply with WP:V, as shown here. diff. I couldn't make out any of his other claims because of WP:TLDR. Being confused, I'd like to ask: Does citing your sources make you comply with WP:V? I ask this question just to get a clear and official judgement from an experienced arbitrator, as this is more or less the entire dispute."
Trajectory of John Vandenberg's constructive suggestion which missed the mark -- a lesson not unheeded by Tenmei?
  • C. Post-decision, I posted and User:FloNight blanked the following:
"ArbCom fails when, at the end of any ArbCom case, parties are left uncomprehending. In the final analysis, the modest remedies of this ArbCom decision are no burden. I don't need to understand or agree in order to comply. However, until I can discern a relationship between the adduced principles and findings of fact, I can't accept this decision. I can't move on.

"I feel cheated because I can't square the adduced principles and findings of fact with explicit core policies. This sense of being tricked is exacerbated by my inability to assess the impact of issues which were not addressed because I didn't know that the locus of dispute had been changed nor did I know that the scope had been enlarged.

"This lingering uncertainty affects every aspect of my Wikipedia participation going foreward; and the difficulty is amplified because I'm deprived of formerly meaningful wiki-catchwords and wiki-terms which might have otherwise helped me to evaluate what happened. I'm forced to guess that the decision-making was affected by other factors which remain unknowable; and that's impossible to parse."

  • D. Post-decision, non-party Caspian blue was encompassed in the remedies because of something not clearly specified or understood or explained in Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Proposed decision, e.g., Tenmei is instructed not to interact with or comment with regard toTeeninvestor or Caspian blue on any page of Wikipedia (except in the course of legitimate dispute resolution initiated by others, if necessary, and in that case subject to remedy 2 below). [underlining added] In the post-decision talk page threads, I knew who was pushing for punishment; but I neither understood nor had any input into (a) the locus of this coda dispute, nor (c) the ad hoc procedures which excluded me entirely; nor were alternate procedures for seeking clarification proposed or permitted.
  • E. Although ArbCom did announce plans to find volunteers to explain what I did not understand, but no one willing to assist me in figuring out what happened has yet been found. My continuing need to know is not because of a chip on shoulder, nor because I'm mindlessly flogging a dead horse, nor am I seeking to make a mountain out of a molehill.
  • F. I have learned the hard way that I am stigmatized as if the objective of this process were designed to contrive a class of wiki-felons; and at the same time, I am without the requisite understanding and comprehension which is essential to avoid recidivism.
  • G. I have repeatedly sought further explanations from ArbCom, but none were forthcoming, although I was encouraged to wait patiently; and now User:FloNight implies that this is never part of a process because "the posting of the Final Decision is the natural ending point for when arbitrators stop discussing the case with the involved parties" [underlilning added] -- see here.
  • H.The process and procedures which led to a decision was arbitrary and unclear. The flaws of input and output exacerbated the consequences of cumulative errors (see GIGO). The remedies and follow-up were unhelpful and wrongfully stigmatizing.
  • Therefore, the entire case should be annulled in order to demonstrate unequivocally that ArbCom is something other than a trap or a trick for the unwary.
  • Annulment is quashes the wrongful use of the ArbCom as weapon for labeling me a wiki-felon, stigmatized forever for bad behaviour.
Tenmei's reply to Bueller 007
[edit]

Yes, I too thought I understood the arbitration decision until JohnVandenberg's edit at Talk:Order of Culture suggested I did not. Finding something about which we can agree is a constructive first step in responding to your statement below. That said, I learned something useful at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 4 when Nihonjoe wrote: "Please don't attribute something to me which is not correct." You have not been specific, but I adopt his "measured" language as a mild and non-confrontational expression of disagreement with other elements of your statement. --Tenmei (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tenmei's reply to Nick-D
[edit]

Yes, you are correct in remembering that I initiated the RFArb. Finding something about which we can agree is a constructive first step in responding to your statement below. That said, I learned something useful at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 4 when Nihonjoe wrote: "Please don't attribute something to me which is not correct." You have not been specific, but I adopt his "measured" language as a mild and non-confrontational expression of disagreement with other elements of your statement. --Tenmei (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tenmei's reply to Teeninvestor
[edit]

Yes, I too join you in hoping this case will be resolved satisfactorily. Finding something about which we can agree is a constructive first step in responding to your statement below. You have not been specific, but I adopt his "measured" language as a mild and non-confrontational expression of disagreement with other elements of your statement. --Tenmei (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tenmei's reply to Caspian blue
[edit]

Yes, you correctly identify something I'd forgotten, a single edit of Gyeongju in July. It was just one otherwise unremarkable reverts in a series which is recorded as part of my User contributions list:

Finding something about which we can agree is a constructive first step in responding to your statement below. That said, I learned something useful at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 4 when Nihonjoe wrote: "Please don't attribute something to me which is not correct." Where you have not been specific, I adopt his "measured" language as a mild and non-confrontational expression of disagreement with other elements of your statement.

I also learned something at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Vote/AGK when User:Manning Bartlett parsed an issue which is no less relevant in this setting. I adopt his measured words as my own: "There is a degree of (possibly unintentional) misrepresentation in Caspian's comment ....". For example, no source exists to support what is perhaps the most dramatic claim: "According to him, I'm a foolish barking dog" (italics in original below). I did not write nor say nor think anything like that. Moreover, the explicit context created by the Restatement section and by Obama's conciliatory remarks (as linked and reproduced above) is simply inconsistent with this and other strained accusations. Beyond blunt denial, I don't know to rebuff extravagant "frequent smearing naming-calling like "crying wolf" and his frequent mention about Korean ethnicity." Overreaching is often recognized as unpersuasive, even dissuasive. --Tenmei (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Wikistalking is overreaching; but in this context, serious consequences ensue. There is nothing inherently vicious in the catchphrase teachable moment, nor was there offense in a question presented to AGK in 2009, nor anything I need explain in at User talk:AGK in 2008 here.
This was perverse before; and now it wanders into territory which is even more difficult to parse. At a minimum, I repeat:
A. "There is a degree of (possibly unintentional) misrepresentation" in Caspian's blue's strategy; and I'm not alone in identifying this elephant in the room.
B. "Please don't attribute something to me which is not correct," e.g.,
Do the following illustrate "frequent smearing naming-calling like "crying wolf"? "bashing"? "mocking"? "frequent mention about Korean ethnicity"?
  • diff, 1-below "Unlike Capsian blue, whose feigned offense developed into a pattern, my edit history supports no inference that I admit to being aggrieved without cause or thought."
  • diff, 2-below ".. section has a citation with a link to an encyclopedia article written in Korean -- yes; but there is no evidence that anyone, not User: Caspian blue nor anyone else has actually read it, nor that any part of that Korean text is accurately reflected in the English prose posted in our article."
  • diff, 3-below. "In the period before User:Caspian blue busied himself with escalating complaint, I had already posted pre-Hepburn transliterations of the names of some of the ambassadors as contrived by Julius Klaproth and Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat in 1834."
  • diff, 4-below. "At some point, User:Caspian blue added a link to one of them referencing an online encylopedia in Korean; but no more effort was invested in improving this article."
  • diff, 5-below. "Caspian blue's contrived drama and exaggerated, aggrieved rhetoric served the ultimate goal of merging a third article with carefully developed sources into those without sources. At the same time, as evidenced by the thread above, Caspian blue resisted all efforts to find a name which would comply with English naming standards."
  • [ diff] ...?
  • [ diff] ...?
  • [ diff] "name-calling like crying wolf" ...? When?
  • [ diff] ...?
  • [ diff] name-calling about "Korean ethnicity ...? When?
Caspian blue selects ed these five instances of perceived misconduct. plus my participation in the thread at Talk:Order of Culture. I posted these examples so that I can figure out how to grapple with these complaints as a group. There is a common theme -- in each diff, the focus has to do with improving the article (permitted) and not a personal attack (not permitted). In each, I acknowledge that User:Caspian blue's actions affect a context of figuring out what to do first and what to do next. In this context, I find myself wondering how exactly does this fit in with the claim that Taemyr "criticized Tenmei's behaviors (his abusive tagging of templates, disregards to Korean naming convention, attacks about Caspian blue) in the last six months?
In the context of this house of cards, my focus is forward-looking. I hazard a guess that these are reasonable and timely comments and questions. If not, why not? --Tenmei (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the section above, I've stricken arguably meaningful responses in order emphasize one fulcrum sentence in Caspian blue's statement:
By editing articles that naturally tend to invite "conflicts" between two different nationals, Tenmei is repeating his old bad habit by just moving onto other editors in dispute such as Historiographer.
Each of the axiomatic presumptions are wrong -- unproven, unprovable except by the circular logic of post hoc ergo propter hoc which held ArbCom in thrall in June.
The initial thrust of this request for amendment is too easily diverted, distracted, deflected. In seeking to assist ArbCom's assessment of Caspian blue's words, I can do no better than to emphasize two elements in the "Restatement" section posted at the beginning of this thread:
3. Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
4. Are unsourced assertions being used?
The sources to which Caspian blue alludes do not actually support the assertions for which they remain uncited.
The unsourced assertions in the ArbCom case were wrongly credited; and it produced a bad result, but the error seemed harmless when I mistook the wiki-terms "mentor" and "mentorship" to be congruent with the Wikipedia articles which explain what mentor and mentorship are generally understood to mean. Moreover, involuntary mentorship does not have a successful track record.
The dire consequences of censure and the irrevocable stigma of a censor is at stake.
Censure ≠ Mentorship = Coaching
 Censor  ≠ Mentor
This has nothing to do with benign coaching and it belies the adduced principle that "the community has a forward-looking approach to interpersonal disputes."
User:FloNight blanked the talk pages at Caspian blue's request. In the same way, this case needs to be annulled because the imprimatur of ArbCom is perverted to concoct a harmful alchemy. It sends a counter-productive message. --Tenmei (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Six month review
[edit]

The three sentences of the "Six Month Review" are not plausible, not accurate, not credible in do not acknowledge the context of e-mails sent by me to ArbCom beginning in June.

Not 'Wrong+'
The Review summary trivializes and dismisses my attempts to figure out what the ArbCom decision meant, conflating evidence of each attempt to be scrupulous with something like inattention. Blame is a difficult word; but in this six month period, my words or actions were careful measured and blameless -- consistently and explicitly at odds with the familiar structure of victimization which Caspian blue erects in his statement on this page or elsewhere.

n my view We acknowledge that it is not necessary for ArbCom to be correct nor even fair. I'm prepared to accept that the volunteer members of the Arbitration Committee do whatever seems practical, which means that I don't even anticipate that any specific decision or series of decisions will be the best of all options. However, the thrust of the Review summary and the increased penalties, narrower restrictions and ratcheted-up punishment imply a perception that I have been unwilling, uncooperative, thoughtless, recalcitrant, heedless or any other of a number of adjectives. I was not unwilling. I was not uninquisitive. This "value-added" opprobrium is unearned, undeserved, unmerited and resistant to parsing.

It's one thing to be simply wrong; and This Review summary contrives something like "wrong+" -- wrong plus something more as well.

As early as June I tried to discover what ArbCom wanted me to do or not do. In the following months My serial e-messages asking ArbCom to explain are not consistent with unwillingness nor uncooperative intention. For example I wrote to FloNight in June with copies to the ArbCom list; and I construed Kirill Lokshin response as encouraging me to wait patiently for further feedback. Carcharoth's response to another request for explanation was explicit in urging patience. Now I am punished for what could have been avoided if only I had asked different questions or understood more about what was expected There is a difference -- a crucial distinction -- between my being merely wrong and "extra-wrong" in terms of the unstated justifications for increased punative burdens, restrictions or penalties which are now imposed. A crucial blurring in the Review summary is married with onerous consequences. This is a bad marriage.

First part of Arbitrators' summary below.

The words of the first paragraph cause a problem in the way they set up 2 + 2 = 4.
  • "Since the close of the Tang Dynasty case, Tenmei has continued to edit without a mentor, frequently editing in topical areas where conflicts have occurred in the past, and on occasion has violated the editing restrictions."
These words -- especially the phrase "violated editing restrictions" -- are misleading because they fail to acknowledge the many times I sought explicitly to find out what were or what were not ArbCom's expectations. In the face of inquiries, which I reasonably construed as invitations for ArbCom to give my work closer scrutiny, I guessed that each of my edits were balanced and unremarkable. How else should I have construed ArbCom's non-responsive silence?
The issues in this thread should have been avoidable. The words of this Review summary seem to apportion responsibility or blame wrongly; and to the extent the sentences are indirectly arguing that I deserve punishment, they're wrong. The approach is wrong. The results are wrong. My passive silence would be wrong, in this context as explained at Wikipedia:Silence and consensus -- Qui tacet consentire videtur. In the alternative, why was how could I have known I was wrong to interpret ArbCom's silence as confirmation that my edits were within the realm of the appropriate?

¶1(a). Copy of e-message, Tenmei to ArbCom-List (17 Sept)

Subject: What, if anything, am I supposed to do or not do?
Copy of e-message, Tenmei to ArbCom-List (17 Sept):
A problem is developing.

I note the following thread which has unfolded on Caspian blue's talk page; and you should note it as well. The familiar pattern deserves noting -- not just in this specific instance, but more broadly as it affects others. In that broader context, this new development is not unanticipated.

What are you going to do? What should you have done in anticipation of this?

What should I do? What should I have done in anticipation of this?

Each of the following articles are meticulously supported by citations from credible sources. The following thread is a reflexive, knee-jerk reaction which contrives a problem where none need exist. These articles are related to the thread below:

See: User talk:Caspian blue#Joseon -- copied below
Hi, you might be busy, but I am also very busy these days. However, this is serious, so I really need help. As User:Tenmei edits Korea-Japan history articles, Joseon Tongsinsa, Taejo of Joseon and Korean diplomats, he ignores Korean naming conventions and names, and removed contents. He also inserted unrelated or trivia and very old outdated sources to articles. So please join the discussion of Joseon Tongsinsa and Taejo of Joseon. Thank you.--Historiographer (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm..so what do you want me to do? --Caspian blue 22:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Caspian Blue, I read the past discussion on Joseon Tongsinsa, and you participated in past discussion with Tenmei. But why are you so quiet even I asked you last time? Many Korean articles are incorrectly named and important materials before Japanese invasions of Korea were arbitrarily deleted. Only people of North Korea are named in RR. But Tenmei ignores Korean name convention. I'm very busy, but the articles are corrected. I don't know why everyone is quiet. Please join the discussion.Historiographer (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the reason is very simple - Although I'm well aware of all the problems you've brought here, I do not want any more nightmare and wasting of my time and energy. I just want peace. I do also care about my heath.(my gastric ulcer was caused by some heavy stresses from some vicious long-term harassment and personal attacks) I will answer more later though.--Caspian blue 15:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After checking on the talk pages, and contributions and unsubstantiated accusations on the talk page, it is too obvious that some intervention by others is strongly required. The split articles are in mess and the person in question unilaterally excises and makes articles for his POV and inserts some unreliable and POV source (where non-scholar or any users can edit) as if he read the original sources through. Unfortunately, there are only handful of active editors, most of which are more interested in South Korean pop culture. I think this is a wake-up call.
To sum up, Tenmei has been under WP:ArbCom probation after his disruption and long-term harassment against users including me were pointed out, so one of his ArbCom probation is to have assigned mentor(s) as well as his 6 month topic ban to some Chinese-Mongolian article.[12] Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joseon_tongsinsa, you already read this AFD, and this is a beginning of the long nightmare. I've tried to avoid editing articles that he edits although those "Korea"-related articles are my common editing articles such as history, Buddhism, culture, Korean terms etc. The Korean source that I inserted was completely deleted by him and he attacked me with very vicious languages on the talk page even though I have been absent of editing or participating in the discussion of Joseon Tongsinsa. He broke his ban in regard to commenting about me, so a block would have been warranted if I had requested for enforcement against his violation. If you have problems with Tenmei, the assigned mentor (I don't know who s/he is because it is not announced yet. That is very odd) is supposed to be assisting you (or anyone conflicting with Tenmei) and Tenmei. I think this matter should get more attention from ArbCom since they are lazy at handling Tenmei's same occurring behaviors. I'd like to say that you have to ignore him, but well... the articles are in total mess. Thank you for bringing up to my attention.--Caspian blue 19:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant that this burgeoning problem now arises in a context in which there has been no reasonable discussion about the broad subject in which the following are all linked. Nor have there been any questions about the sources which inform the text of these articles.
This is a general inquiry; but I have a specific question as well. I noticed one of Caspian blue's sentences: "He broke his ban in regard to commenting about me, so a block would have been warranted if I had requested for enforcement against his violation." What, if anything, am I supposed to do or not do in the context of this sentence?(emphasis/underlining added) --Tenmei
He broke his ban in regard to commenting about me, so a block would have been warranted if I had requested for enforcement against his violation. (Note this repetition of the sentence which causes me to ask a timely question).


Second part of Arbitrators' summary below.

These words of the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are a problem in the way they set up 2 + 2 = 4.
  • "The Arbitration Committee's attempts to arrange mentors has proved difficult in this case, especially with Tenmei rejecting a suitable mentor found by the Arbitration Committee recently .... The committee is not able to fulfill the role of a mentor, and regretfully moves to shift the responsibility of obtaining a mentor onto Tenmei."
The phrases of the Review summary apportion responsibility or blame wrongly. and to the extent the words are indirectly arguing that I deserve punishment, those words are wrong. The approach is wrong. The results are wrong. No less important, my passive silence would be wrong. In other words, I ought to have spoken when I was able to do so -- and I did do what could be done. (Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit or "Thus, silence gives consent; he ought to have spoken when he was able to.")

¶2-3(a). Copy of e-message, John Vandenberg to Tenmei (17 Nov).

The only specific question asked was: "Is this suitable?"
Subject: Is this suitable?
Copy of e-message, John Vandenberg to Tenmei (17 Nov):
Hi Tenmei,

As you know, the arbcom decision was that you were to have a mentor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tang_Dynasty#Tenmei_mentored

I have spoken with [name redacted], and he has agree to be your mentor, if you agree.

Is this suitable?

I would appreciate it if you could respond quickly to this request. --John Vandenberg

¶2-3(b). Copy of e-message, Tenmei to John Vandenberg (17 Nov).

The only specific question asked was: "Is this suitable?" My response addressed issues of "suitability." I had not understood that the question was merely rhetorical.of the offer. and in subsequently, the ramped-up punishment does not sit lightly. My sentences and paragraphs were crafted by someone trying to understand, by someone trying to invite some alternate way to parse sentences in a meaningful manner
Subject: Converting proposed "mentor" into an untrustworthy opponent, which becomes unworkable
Copy of e-message, Tenmei to John Vandenberg (17 Nov):
John--
If this offer of a mentor/colleague had been proposed at any point prior to November 2009, my response would have been yes.

Today, my response is quite different. No.

I sought help, but neither you nor anyone else in the ArbCom process answered any questions with a perverse outcome as the inevitable consequence. Nor did you respond to the serial inquiries I've addressed to ArbCom in the period since Tang Dynasty closed.

As far as I can tell, your only objective today is punative and thus harmful. No.

I do not deserve this; and worse, it sends the wrong message. The circumstances you contrive convert [amy proposed "mentor"] into an untrustworthy opponent, which becomes unworkable a priori.(emphasis/underlining added)

Think again.

Start here -- explain this: Am I to construe that Caspian blue's contributions to this thread are not inflammatory

  • Oppose for the reason expressed succinctly by Dekimasu: Preemptive disambiguation is deprecated. In addition, the following points are relevant:
A. This non-issue is most easily resolved by relying on the explicit expression of the Korean government website which elaborates on the national system of orders, decorations and medals. See, e.g., 문화훈장(文化勳章, Order of Culture Merit.
B. This non-issue was contrived by Caspian blue without foundation or merit. Indeed, even the link proffered in ostensible support fails in this too-facile gambit. See, e.g., an Sang-hee. "Bae Receives National Order of Culture Merit," Korea Times. October 19, 2008.
C. With regret, I feel compelled to note that the community has ill-served Caspian blue in the past by validating this confrontational tactic; but perhaps instead, this thread can evolve into a teachable moment with unanticipated consequences? --Tenmei (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tenmei, I'm sorry, haven't you been under the WP:ARBCOM probation because of "your ill-served behaviors" recognized by ArbCom? Judging by your "current" violation of your [[WP:ARBCOM] probation again in regard to commenting about me here, I guess you don't get your teachable moment yet regardless of your active sanction. Your WP:Bad faith, and personal attacks are out of line. Comments about edit or the request are fine just like the others, but if you do not stop making personal attacks against me and strike the comments, I would make formally make WP:AE report on your violation as well as the others for the past months in which you've violated a lot. This is my last generosity on your violations. When you made made incorrect edits to articles, I did not play such low blow.--Caspian blue 22:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
This pattern is familiar, characteristic. My reasoning is supported by research, by reference to reliable sources and by moderate language.(emphasis/underlining added) In contrast, Caspian blue's immoderate language ratchets up and re-frames perceived conflict -- with no investment of time or thought beyond the outburst of pumped-up indignation.

John, your e-message effectively validates Caspian blue's confrontational tactics. Worse, it effectively devalues anything and everything else. In contrast, you have my explicit words characterizing the foundation from which my editing practices build.

Restatement
My contributions to this not-very-complicated thread have been informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point in a predictably escalating drama:
  • 1. What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
  • 2. What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does each cited source reflect that consensus?
  • 3. Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
  • 4. Are unsourced assertions being used?
Can't we agree that this provides a commonly accepted foundation for our work together. --Tenmei (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
In this context, Caspian blue's admission is telling: "Of course, I did not know the existence of Order of Cultural Merit (Korea) ...." This sentence demonstrates that thread was not initiated to solve a problem, but to contrive one. My candor was set within an informed context. (emphasis/underlining added)
The edit history of Order of Cultural Merit (Korea) includes no contributions from Caspian blue. The following citations support a select list of Korean recipients; and each of these reliable Korean sources support the moderate views expressed by Dekimasu and Phoenix7777:
In case you've forgotten, the restatement are Coren's words. Your e-mail rejects their logic and mine.

At root, ArbCom's handling of Tang Dynasty rejects Coren's words and now the outcome, as I predicted, contrives new problems-which-don't-need-to-be-problems.

You will have to do better than this.

No. --Tenmei

¶2-3(c). Copy of e-message, John Vandenberg to Tenmei (18 Nov).

The unstated Axiomatic presumptions which underlie this response are not mirrored in what came before. the serial communication which preceded this current situation; and to the extent that this failure of communication can be parsed, it is reasonable to wonder why? For example, this is the first time that ArbCom has explicitly states that I was wrong to ask questions about what the ArbCom decision meant for me to do or not to do? If it were to have been so obvious, then why didn't one of the earlier responses state exactly that? My best guess is that this is an unwelcome post hoc rationalization. In different words, what good and valid reason justifies waiting until now -- months later? What about those unacknowledged ArbCom responses to my inquiries which encouraged me to wait patiently are not acknowledged. as I have done?
Another example: This message from John Vandenberg represents the first time I encounter any hint of expectation that I should have been actively looking for a mentor. How was I supposed to have made guesses about this in the absence of any words?
Subject: Not responded to your emails because it is not our job to be your mentor
Copy of e-message, John Vandenberg to Tenmei (18 Nov).
Thank you for responding quickly Tenmei.
The first point I wish to make is that the arbcom decision does not restrict Caspian blue.
I am sorry if you think this is not fair.
You are restricted, and you are violating that restriction.
If Caspian blue does something which you do not like, you should talk to your mentor and, if they agree, pursue dispute resolution. You are not permitted to interact with Caspian blue and Teeninvestor.
The committee does not have time to get involved in your disputes, and does not want to see your private correspondence with your mentor. The committee has not responded to your emails because it is not our job to be your mentor.(emphasis/underlining added)
It is our responsibility to ensure that you have a mentor. If the committee needs to become involved, they will probably enact remedies which are even less fair, because you have not found a mentor.(emphasis/underlining added)

You can not ask for relief while you are violating the ArbCom decision.

If Caspian blue regularly does things which you do not like, we can amend the case so that Caspian blue is also restricted, but we will not do that until you have a mentor and your mentor tells us that Caspian blue is causing problems.
[Name redacted] was not willing to be a mentor, but [name redacted] is willing. --John Vandenberg


Too long/didn't read
Nothing in this case was a simple matter. This short analysis could not be more concise. I regret the point-of-view of those inclined to reject, dismiss or ignore whatever I write. This is explained, they say, by the rubric of WP:TLDR. I can only hope that this negative reading is not unilikely to be balanced by others who do read and do try to understand what I have try to explain. In this comment What can be said to those who reject a priori?

Words do matter. Actions do matter. In this case, non-responsive silence and prolonged inaction matter, too.

Consequences are never unimportant.

No harmful consequence flow from identifying the axiomatic presumptions which underly the summary which has now been endorsed by a number of ArbCom members. Rather, I am shouldering reasonable responsibilities in this situation by trying to clarify the context. My explicit and repeated efforts to contribute constructively are demonstrable and not insignificant. I have done what I could to avoid the problems I confront today; and I need to state exactly that.

It is simply wrong to impose added adverse burdens on me as a consequence of failures which were not within my ability to affect. --Tenmei (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: re Vandenberg's draft summary
No. I suppose that this post hoc fiction will seem plausible. to the casual reviewer, but I deserve something better as a summary from which others will draw inferences. The consequences you propose in relation to this summary require that your prose be more carefully considered. Your sentences must be able to stand up to closer scrutiny. In general, your approach enhances perverse incentives. --Tenmei (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2009 --Tenmei (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As with Coren below, your re-definition of the wiki-term "mentor" is both novel and undefined. This is only discoverable at "Mentor Availability" when you explain, "Issues need to be taken directly to the mentors" and at "Editors who come into conflict" when you explain that "it goes without saying that "editors who come into conflict with Tenmei are advised to contact the mentor(s) either publicly or via email."

Your unique usage is not mirrored in the texts of Mentor or Mentorship or WP:Mentorship.

I don't dispute your personal decision to re-define a term, nor do I dispute ArbCom's collective re-defining of terms. However, when you and/or ArbCom does something like this, it cannot be presented as axiomatic. To the extent that your clarifying language is accepted and adopted by your ArbCom colleagues, this becomes something other than what you see is what you get. The Knife-edge effect of this re-definition needs further investigation. This re-definition was not made explicit, thus constriving a bait and switch scenario. My objections now are timely. --Tenmei (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: re Carcharoth's endoresement of Review summary
No, this is not a fair summary. As you know, this narrative is inconsistent with your own personal experience. Your casual assent in this context serves Wikipedia poorly because it effectively endorses perverse incentives. --Tenmei (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2009 --Tenmei (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: re Coren's endorsement of Review summary
Your re-definition of the wiki-term "mentor" is both novel and undefined. This is only discoverable at "Mentor Availability" when you explain, "That is, in fact, one of the primary objectives of having a mentor." (emphasis/underlining added) Prior to this, how could I have known that, as ArbCom uniquely defines this term, a wiki-mentor "must be publicly identified, and willing to make themselves available for other editors to contact them publicly or privately.

Your unique usage is not mirrored in the texts of Mentor or Mentorship or WP:Mentorship.

I don't dispute your personal decision to re-define a term, nor do I dispute ArbCom's collective re-defining of terms. However, when you and/or ArbCom does something like this, it cannot be presented as axiomatic. To the extent that your clarifying language is accepted and adopted by your ArbCom colleagues, this becomes something other than what you see is what you get. Using your own idiomatic words, this is not an instance in which the undefined wiki-term does exactly what it says on the tin. The Knife-edge effect of this re-definition needs further investigation. This re-definition was not made explicit, thus creating a bait and switch scenario. My unanswered questions now are timely. --Tenmei (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re Riskers endorsement of Six month review & Enforcement of mentorship
What is a caveat other than the result of Lessons learned the hard way? Risker's contributes untimely threats; and the message for the already willing becomes strained, frail, thin. A friend gave me a yellowed newspaper clipping -- a copy of an old chess column published in the New York Times. The published heading and initial sentences are persuasive, prudent and forward-looking:
Beware the shortsighted quick fix that can lead to worse problems.
"The close-at-hand problem is always the one the defender must take care of before anything else, but the solution should include what you are committing yourself to over the long haul.

"It is altogether too easy to let the burden of the immediate problem obliterate other considerations from your thinking and to jump at what promises to be a quick fix. What often happens is that you have not achieved a long-range success but only converted one difficulty into another perhaps less obvious but no less onerous one."

-- Robert Byrne. "Chess," New York Times. December 24, 1989.
In our context, there is something lacking in judgment which misconstrues learned caution as something other than what it is. In the decision-making here, Risker simply contributed an added assent to other votes which were already posted; but the cognitive dissonance and other reasoning which underly Risker's judgment have consequences. "When the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail." --Tenmei (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bueller 007

[edit]

Still WP:TLDR mixed in with a hefty dose of obfuscation. Doesn't seem to have taken much out of previous arbitration in this regard, which I guess makes sense since he says he couldn't understand it. I don't know anything about the case above and beyond what's written on the RfA page, but the results of arbitration made perfect sense to me, and they seemed more than fair. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nick-D

[edit]

This seems to be nothing more than an attempt to reject the entire arbitration outcome on the grounds that Tenmei was unable to dictate how it was conducted and didn't like the outcome (from memory, he initiated the RFArb). Nick-D (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Teeninvestor

[edit]

Tenmei's latest endeveaur is nothing but an example of the need for the case's provisions. Tenmei continues to display the disruptive characteristics that he had in the last dispute(WP:TLDR, unwillingness to work with others, inability to understand policy, etc..). In fact, he is currently engaged in a dispute with User:Historiographer. I support ArbCom's latest provisions, including a prohibition on Tenmei editing without a mentor. I am currently not able to participate fully in the case due to school, SAT and other purposes, but I hope this case will be resolved satisfactorily. I believe that this latest disruption by Tenmei has affirmed my earlier view for the need for a mentor immediately as well as punitive blocks. As Tenmei has rejected the first, it may be necessary to use the second to prevent any more disruption. Teeninvestor (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Caspian blue

[edit]

As far as I've known, Tenmei is the only person who has freely edited Wikipedia so far without any punishment regardless of his constant refusal to accept the final remedies imposed to him and to abide by WP:NPA and WP:HARASSMENT. His case is quit strikingly in contrast with the cases of Mythdon (talk · contribs) (and Scuro (talk · contribs), whose cases were submitted and wrapped in similar times. They all refused to accept mentorship and went on with the same problematic behaviors, so their remedies are intensified. This contrast does not mean that Tenmei has been editing Wikipedia without breaking his sanction, but my skin gets much thicker after Tenmei's long-term harassment of me, and I have not reported Tenmei for his numerous violations to WP:AE in order to block him. I think I really tried to give him another second chance (foolishly) and cooperate with him since his name has been popping up a lot to "newly created Korean-related article board". After the ArbCom case was close, his interests are weirdly moved to Korean related topics, not necessarily about Korea-Japan topics. FloNight recommended me and Teeninvestor to let "others edit the conflicted articles", but such others are almost "none" even though the topics are very notable. I'd been avoiding Tenmei for 3 months after the case was closed although I knew he several times bashed about me[13][14][15][16][17] when Taemyr (talk · contribs), informal mentor of Tenmei, criticized Tenmei's behaviors (his abusive tagging of templates, disregards to Korean naming convention, attacks about me). The frequency of Tenmei's editing Korean-related topics are rather hugely increased after the case. His interests were switched from Mongolian-Chinese relations to ancient Korean-Chinese or Korean-Japanese relations. At that times, I was busy for WP:FAR on Gyeongju (Tenmei appeared to edit the article unsurprisingly) and WP:GA on Korean cuisine, so his provocation could be ignored. However, not for other editors.

By editing articles that naturally tend to invite "conflicts" between two different nationals, Tenmei is repeating his old bad habit by just moving onto other editors in dispute such as Historiographer (talk · contribs). The latter asked me twice to participate in discussion because he felt handling Tenmei's POV pushing and inserting of original research are beyond his capacity. The ArbCom case only covers the article of Tang Dynasty in Inner Asia, so his mentorship and his probation; prohibiting commenting about me anywhere within Wikipedia - could be only things on which I can depend without fear of Tenmei's persistent harassment. However, well...regardless of my reminder that he should not comment about me and focus on topic in discuss, he still does not get it. According to him, I'm a "foolish barking dog" because I pointed out his breach of WP:ARBCOM ban and WP:Personal attacks and WP:Bad faith. That is another unforgettable slur after his favorite naming calling of me "crying wolf" and "toxic warrior" got old fashion. Calling someone dog is perceived to Koreans as a great slur and even often as a racial slur", and I have lost my good faith that he would not know of this given his frequent smearing naming-calling like "crying wolf" and his frequent mention about Korean ethnicity. He so kindly linked the idiom article that he created; that is just typical because he's created perhaps 4 or 5 articles on English idioms just to mock his opponents and quoted them and urged me to "read and learn about them". I've been working with various editors, and he is also the only one who has not been punished at all for his such vicious behaviors (all are either banned, blocked multiply, or topic-banned indefinitely) However, reporting him to WP:ANI is a great time sink and a loss of my health without any action to him because of his WP:TL;DR and inability of communication, so I rather tried to make him acknowledge that he needs mentors to cooperate articles.

However, if I want to fix articles in wrong Romanization per WP:NC-KO, a grand saga would always wait for me. I've explained many times to make Tenmei to understand the naming convention, but he would not listen. Tenmei canvassed about a to-do-list on his opponent's user page to over 10 talk pages. I removed one such offensive message from the talk page, I become engaged in a tag-team according to his attacks. So what should be done with the amendment? Get him a mentor or do the same remedies enforced to Mythdon and Scuro. For the past 6 months, he has refused to move on but repeated the same old habit. I do not want to waste another 6 months over this. In addition, Tenmei still wrongly accuses her Teeninvestor of using "hollow sources"; Teeninvestor has obtained a GA with the book reference.--Caspian blue 19:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Tenmei's wikistalking I considered bring Tenmei's another spooky obsessive behavior. Tenmei just confessed he is still wikistalking me above. That's why he only asked about his weird and cryptic questions to AGK (talk · contribs) among the bunch of candidates because he tracked down my contribution and saw me message to AGK. This "teachable moment" thing that you threw to AGK is the same one when you attacked me with the said vicious attacks.[18]. This is all the same typical Tenmei's habit; canvassing to people who had previous interaction with me in order to make a negative impression on me. Your inability of communication is well shown in AGK's response.[19] Tenmei, think about why your "barking dog" attacks were deleted and the edit summary that tells you that you're breaking your ArbCom ban.[20] You should feel lucky that I gave you another chance to seek your mentor for over a week instead of making you directly blocked by WP:AE. Dekimatsu told you that "don't touch my comment",[21] and you still do the same inappropriate behaviors as well. You also broke your ban to his talk page.[22]. This example, Talk:Yeo Ui-son would show a big difference between you and me when it comes to handle content disputes; while you resort to personal attacks are well shown with this diff.[23][24][25][26][27]-Caspian blue 02:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Penwhale

[edit]

Any time that foreign-language text/sources are involved, it should not hurt to have someone fluent in the language to overlook things. (Granted, I have my own views regarding PRC and ROC and their political status, but that's another issue - ask me about it at some point and I probably can assure that you'd get more confused at the end.) If I didn't say it before, I say now that I'm willing to assist regarding foreign language text/sources when I'm provided the references to look at. I've personally translated a few things in the original case; however, I did not manage to gain access to any of the actual text (of the book) itself (which I've stated in the original case, too.) I'm willing to assist - not as a mentor (I've been too inactive to do that) - when translation is required I believe I can be of some help.

But in this case I don't want to take a nosedive without knowing what I'm getting myself into. After all, this is the area where I may be perceived as having a bias - treading carefully is best. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 02:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added 04:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC): Make it so that mentors who resign must inform ArbCom and have major mentor activities (resigning, assignment, mentor on wiki-break and needs someone else to step in, etc.) logged on the case page would clear up the status, no? Wouldn't that be a better idea than have the mentor just be publicly identifiable? - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 04:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment 2

[edit]
  • Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
  • Details of desired modification

Statement by your username (2)

[edit]

{Statement by editor filing request for amendment. Contained herein should be an explanation and evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary.}

Statement by other editor (2)

[edit]

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

[edit]
Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

[edit]

Clerk notes

[edit]
This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

[edit]
  • Tenmei, the annulment that I proposed for The Troubles case is because a year has elapsed since the case has closed, and I think it is possible to conclude that case so that the community can try to manage the problem. I expect that the community would bring a new case to us. The Tang Dynasty case has not yet been implemented properly - you still do not have a mentor, yet you keep editing, and you have not stepped away from the conflicts which you were involved in prior to the case. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tang Dynasty motions

[edit]

Six month review

[edit]

Since the close of the Tang Dynasty case, Tenmei has continued to edit without a mentor, frequently editing in topical areas where conflicts have occurred in the past, and on occasion has violated the editing restrictions.

The Arbitration Committee's attempts to arrange mentors has proved difficult in this case, especially with Tenmei rejecting a suitable mentor found by the Arbitration Committee recently.

In lieu of a mentor, Tenmei has sought advice from the Arbitration Committee about the decision, editorial disputes and project guidelines and policies. The committee is not able to fulfill the role of a mentor, and regretfully moves to shift the responsibility of obtaining a mentor onto Tenmei.

Support
  1. This is a fair summary. Carcharoth (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 19:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Coren (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 18:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Vassyana (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse
Discussion

Tenmei mentor

[edit]

Tenmei (talk · contribs) 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. During this period, Tenmei is instructed to avoid talking about other editors.

Support
  1. This amends 2.1, replacing "shall be assigned one or more volunteer mentors" with "is required to have one or more volunteer mentors". John Vandenberg (chat) 02:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 19:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Coren (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 18:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Vassyana (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse
Discussion

Mentor availability

[edit]

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

Support
  1. Issues need to be taken directly to the mentors. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 19:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. That is, in fact, one of the primary objectives of having a mentor. — Coren (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 18:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Vassyana (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse
Discussion

Editors who come into conflict

[edit]

Editors who come into conflict with Tenmei are advised to contact the mentor(s) either publicly or via email.

Support
  1. Weakly; this goes without saying. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Problems with notification of said editors, but at the least those following this request and those who have had disputes with Tenmei previously should take heed of this. Carcharoth (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 19:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Coren (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 18:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Vassyana (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse
Discussion

Tenmei restriction reset

[edit]

The restrictions in remedy 1.1 are reset, to commence once the mentor arrangement is approved by the Arbitration Committee.

Support
  1. Necessary in order for the mentoring to have a chance. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Carcharoth (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 19:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Coren (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 18:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Vassyana (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse
Discussion

Enforcement of mentorship

[edit]

Should Tenmei violate the requirement to have a mentor before contributing, or should Tenmei cause unrest while contacting potential mentors, the user may be briefly blocked for up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty#Log of blocks and bans.

Support
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Carcharoth (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As Wizardman says, this may be suboptimal; but it's necessary. — Coren (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weakly support; still unsure but it's something. Wizardman 19:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weakly support. Tenmei should interpret this as strong motivation to focus on obtaining a mentor, rather than a new opportunity to debate, else other stronger remedies may be put in place. Risker (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'll support this for now, but I doubt that in practice we would tolerate multiple violations before escalating to a more severe sanction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
This I don't know. I'd rather give him a time limit and if he can't do it, it's a full ban. Wizardman 19:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Per Wizardman.  Roger Davies talk 18:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Time limits. Vassyana (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse
Discussion

Clerk notes

[edit]

Ten arbitrators active on these Tang Dynasty case amendment motions, hence a majority of 6. All the motions are currently passing, though the enforcement motion only passes due to abstentions. Three arbitrators left to vote here. Will notify a clerk to prepare a fuller version of these notes, in preparation for closing this, either after the remaining arbitrators vote, or within 24-48 hours. Carcharoth (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification: Tang Dynasty (May 2010)

[edit]

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

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

Statement by Tenmei

[edit]
ArbCom decisions in December set in motion a slow process which now calls for further ArbCom action.
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 "approval" or confirmation is anticipated.
[29 words]
A. No procedure tells me how to elicit ArbCom "approval" or confirmation. If mailing the list to ArbCom members individually and posting the list at WP:AC/CN is sufficient, good. If not, what alternative action is preferred?
[35/64 words]
B. No protocols explain how these mentors will know that he/she has been approved or confirmed. If it is sufficient for someone to post "approved" after each name listed at WP:AC/CN or here, good. If not, what alternative action is preferred?
[40/106 words]
C. Nothing guides me in knowing when I may re-commence normal editing. If "A" is sufficient or if "B" is required, good. If not, what alternative action is preferred?
[28/134 words]
D. If this is not the correct venue to address these matters, what venue is preferred?
[15/149 words]
According to the Wikipedia article about the phrase "moving the goalpost":
  • The term is often used in business to imply bad faith on the part of those setting goals for others to meet, by arbitrarily making additional demands just as the initial ones are about to be met.
  • This form of abuse tend to occur when there are unstated assumptions that are obvious to one party but not to another.
I do understand bad faith, but I reject applying the concept to ArbCom members. At the same time, I observe that ArbCom appears to be
We can distinguish between bad faith and mere mistakes; however, we cannot reject the relevance of unstated assumptions which produce unintended consequences.
The good faith of volunteer mentors has been subjected to a needless form of abuse. --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Echo
[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

The original ArbCom participants in Tang Dynasty affirmed this principle:

6) Editors should use their best efforts to communicate with one another, particular when disputes arise. When an editor's input is consistently unclear or difficult to follow, the merits of his or her position may not be fully understood by those reading the communication. An editor's failure to communicate concerns with sufficient clarity, conciseness and succinctness, or with insufficient attention to detail, or failure to focus on the topic being discussed, can impede both collaborative editing and dispute resolution. Editors should recognise when this is the case and take steps to address the problems, either on their own or, where necessary, by seeking assistance.
[emphasis underlining + italics added]
Support:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 21:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  Roger Davies talk 08:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Vassyana (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 00:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Response to Steve Smith

[edit]
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 Wikipedia talk:Mentorship: I was alarmed to read about situations in which mentors confronted role-related abuse; and I won't be alone in defending those whose only motivation is benevolent.
In the planning period, I learned tangentially from teachable moments which arose as these mentors worked with each other, reinforcing a comment or observation with different words or a slightly different emphasis.
The group also encompasses non-public advisors who remain unidentified. In the preliminary period of organizing, an anonymous leader was pivotal in the process of distilling a plan drafted to be less than 200 words; and in this context, Taivo's comments about counting words were rephrased and refocused by Leujohn. Although unconventional in this ArbCom setting, the word counting illustrates an arguably constructive experiment already initiated by the Mentorship Committee. --Tenmei (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Response to Coren

[edit]
John Carter is the only one of us with wiki-mentoring experience. He has been off-wiki since late December; and it is unlikely that he will be able to add his voice here. A brief note from SatuSuro here suggests that computer-hardware problems may explain and excuse this absence. I urge confirmation or "approval" as a mentor in anticipation of his return.
You will know that John Carter is one of Mattisse's mentors. His early advice was informed by what seemed to have worked well in that unique setting. For example, User talk:Tenmei/Sub-page Alerts and User:Tenmei/Sub-page Alerts were created as a result of his suggestions.
John Carter's early involvement doubtless influenced others in their willingness to join my mentorship group. For example, when Taivo agreed to join, he wrote, " ... if I read correctly, John Carter has volunteered to be a part. He is a very good editor and will be a good member of the mentorship committee." --Tenmei (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the contexts of RogerDavies' question and Risker's question below, it seems timely to recite something Coren explained in an e-mail: "Actually, mentorship is exactly what it says on the tin: good counsel ... [from] experienced editor[s] familiar with the intricacies of how Wikipedia works." --Tenmei (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Response to RogerDavies

[edit]

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


Principles. In circumstances which are impossible to foretell, the analysis of mentors functioning in a monitor-like role will be informed by principles adduced in the Tang Dynasty case; that is, ensuring the purpose of creating "a high-quality free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among editors." (See Principle 1, "Purpose of Wikipedia") This means that "the reliability and accuracy of our content is extremely important ..., requir[ing] that article content that is challenged or is likely to be challenged must be attributed to a published reliable source supporting the information presented." (Principle 3, "Reliability and verifiability of sources") In the same way that "[i]t is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors," neither is this an arguable burden of the mentors group. (See Principle 5, "Role of the Arbitration Committee")
Remedies. Consistent with the remedies ArbCom has mandated, the mentors are "publicly identified, and willing to make themselves available for other editors to contact them publicly or privately." (See Remedy 3.2, "Tenmei Restricted") For redundant clarity, ArbCom has said the same thing in different words -- that "[e]ditors who come into conflict with Tenmei are advised to contact the mentor(s) either publicly or via email." (See Remedy 9, "Editors who come into conflict") These complementary remedies mirror a unique principle -- that "[e]ditors who encounter difficulties in communicating with others on-wiki are advised to seek help ... in presenting their thoughts clearly, particularly when disputes arise or when dispute resolution is sought"; and "[t]his particularly applies to editors whose native language may not be English." (See Principle 4, "Non-English language sources")
Non-English language. Preliminary decisions in Tang Dynasty inform expectations about which may become problematic in the future. e.g.,
  • "... Some of the issues may be a bit complicated and/or require a bit of expert assistance, but in the scheme of things that can be said about quite a large portion of the topics we cover. I'd encourage ... seek[ing] out the input of one or more uninvolved Chinese-speaking editors." — Vassyana 05:49, 24 March 2009
  • "Some input from a Chinese-speaking administrator or experienced editor on the sourcing/verifiability and related issues might be helpful here." — Newyorkbrad 03:48, 19 March 2009
  • "I'm going to second that request from an uninvolved Chinese-literate editor; it does appear that any case would revolve around the sources, and a good interpretation of them appears indispensable. — Coren 00:40, 20 March 2009
  • "I think Wikisource can be of assistance here as a scratch pad to record the sources [in Chinese] and translations. Wikisource has an Author page ... [and t]here are no limitations on the amount of detail that can be recorded on Wikisource Author pages ... [and] if no public domain translation is available, a collaborative translation can be created on English Wikisource." — John Vandenberg 00:20, 26 March 2009
  • "I see that we are stuck here. Has any Chinese-speaking editor who would help been found?" — FayssalF 18:46, 25 March 2009
Leujohn is Chinese, living in Hong Kong; and if he should be unavailable, Penwhale has agreed here to assist the mentors as needed. An anonymous Korean-literate editor has agreed to assist the mentors if asked to do so. In addition, other East Asian language resources will be developed over the coming weeks, so that the potential range of back-up sought by the mentors will have depth.
Communciation. The Mentorship Committee exists to help ameliorate communication-problems and/or to mitigate communication-barriers, e.g.,
  • "When an editor's input is consistently unclear or difficult to follow, the merits of his or her position may not be fully understood by those reading the communication."
  • "An editor's failure to communicate concerns with sufficient clarity, conciseness and succinctness, or with insufficient attention to detail, or failure to focus on the topic being discussed, can impede both collaborative editing and dispute resolution."
To this end, ArbCom-approved "public" mentors will be available to help editors recognise communication-related issues and to encourage "steps to address the problems." (See Principle 6, "Communication").
From time to time, Nihonjoe's background in East Asian matters may be helpful for the mentors. Taivo's professional and scholarly background in language and linguistics may prove to be useful to the mentors. Other area-related or subject-related expertise can be developed when the mentors perceive the need for other context-related back-up.
Working venues. As a result of John Carter's suggestions (developed from what seemed effective or useful in Mattisse's mentoring process), the following a bold orange Notice/navagation bar was posted near the top of the page at User talk:Tenmei:
Mentorship Committee – for issues requiring mentors' involvement, → → → → click HERE
This notice bar links to User talk:Tenmei/Sub-page Alerts. The "public" mentors are identified on this "Alerts" page. Links to their talk pages and links to e-mail are posted. Instructions about how to use this alternate venue are provided; and a suggested format is offered for those who may want to make use of it. Principles and remedies adduced in Tang Dynasty are made specific and tangible in this on-wiki venue.
In addition, private e-mail communication between members of the Mentorship Committee is enhanced by off-wiki mentoring sites which have been established at Google Groups, Google Docs and Google Wave.
Other mentors or advisors. If other "public" mentors are to be added, the names can be submitted for ArbCom confirmation. in a manner similar to this thread Additional advisors or non-public mentors will be added in a manner which the Mentorship Committee deems appropriate and convenient. Such additional names will be made public or kept confidential depending on individual preferences.
WP:TL;DR. If this response is deemed too long, I am ready to strike any parts which are considered superfluous or unwanted. I prepared this without consulting anyone else; and therefore, I remain solely responsible for any flaws. --Tenmei (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Response to Risker – Moving the goalposts

[edit]
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 ... [from] experienced editor[s] familiar with the intricacies of how Wikipedia works."
In this circumstance, I feel awkwardly compelled to intervene to protect and preserve those who I have asked to help me as mentors. Is it not seemly for me to demonstrate in this way that I value them?

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

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

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

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

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

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

In June 2009, FloNight restated ArbCom's objectives:

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

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

Reinventing the wheel. As FloNight explained in June 2009, "... if mentors see a new problem they can make it clear to him that they will tell us so that we can promptly handle it. This approach usually works best." As succinctly expressed by SMcCandlish here, " ...this is 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia: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. [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. [O]ur interest is not in criticizing you but finding ways to enable you to better edit the encyclopedia. There is a general view that when you get into editing conflicts that your communication style makes it difficult for you to work through the issue. Our goal is to assist you in working that problem. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Response to Carcharoth – Raising the bar

[edit]
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 Wikipedia article about the phrase "moving the goalpost":

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

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 Wikipedia 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.
[Compare diff.]
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 Wikipedia in a regular and reliable manner." [Compare diff.]
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
...." [Compare diff.]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Response to SirFozzie – Extending a finish line

[edit]
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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Response to Hersfold – Changing the terms

[edit]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Response to Newyorkbrad — Runaround?

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

Response to Shell — Give it some time?

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

Statement by Doc james

[edit]

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

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

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

Tenmei has not made an article edit for three months [28] this after he was consistently making a thousand a month. I would recommend he resume editing slowly so that we may have time to adjust or edit a different topic areas. Will be happy to look at concerns. I do not believe a formal process is required.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I try to provide advice in such a way as to support and supplement the approach of those who have agreed to be mentors. I would like to see Tenmei back to editing articles: I think Tenmei has a great capacity for providing referenced material to build articles. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May Tenmei have permission to return to editing? I will keep an eye on things this week and provide feedback. As it has been more than 3 months I think it would be reasonable to move forwards.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think for starter Tenmei should be allowed to edit in topic areas far removed from what his arb com revolved around. Preferable I would like too see him expand what type of work he does but of course we are all volunteers and no one really has any binding obligation. To give all a heads up I am leaving reasonable computer access on March 16th and not back until April 11th.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But I agree that we should hammer something out before we move forwards.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comments from Nihonjoe

[edit]

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

(a) how you will address differences amongst yourselves (a situation we have encountered in other mentoring situations);
This seems to me that Risker is assuming we're all idiots here (that's the impression I get from the tone of these questions). As with everything else on Wikipedia, if I have a concern or disagreement I'll discuss it with anyone involved. Not sure if you're looking for something else here, Risker, but this one is really a no-brainer.
(b) what range of actions you are willing to undertake as individuals and as a group;
I have no idea what you mean here. I'll help where I can, and that's it. I don't plan on monitoring Tenmei 24/7, if that's what you mean, but if there is an issue and someone brings it up to me, I'll look into it.
(c) how the "group" will work when Tenmei is also receiving private advice from individuals not specifically included in the group of mentors.
Again, I think you're making this far more complicated than it needs to be, Risker. If Tenmei is receiving "private" advice, then he's receiving private advice and it's not likely we'll know about it unless it's posted on the site somewhere. If there's an issue we need to discuss, then we'll discuss it. There's no need to act as if we're children here, Risker. Tenmei is obviously willing to work with us and we're willing to work with him on this issue. Tenmei has complied with every little nit-picky thing you've come up with, and yet you still keep throwing out more that he must do. There's a limit to how many hoops you should make someone jump through when they are going above and beyond to show they are willing to improve. Do you want something signed in blood to prove it? Sorry if I sound a bit miffed here, but I believe this is another case where ArbCom is going far beyond the bounds of what they are supposed to do. Perhaps it's time you started assuming a little good faith on the part of those who've offered to help rather than giving us all the third degree and acting as if we're all idiots who don't know how to work here. We've all been here for a long time, and have a proven track record showing we know how things work and how to interact, so posing these "Duh" questions is pointless and makes it appears as if you believe we don't have the experience we do. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Taivo

[edit]

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

Here is my take on the situation so far.

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

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

Comment from Robofish

[edit]

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

Comment from McDoobAU93

[edit]

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

Now, as to the questions posed by Risker:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment from Kraftlos

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Note from Coppertwig

[edit]

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

Statement by Leujohn

[edit]

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

Response to Risker
I will try to make my answers as brief as possible, as I do not want to add to any possible confusion.
(a) how you will address differences amongst yourselves (a situation we have encountered in other mentoring situations)
I do not think I am qualified to answer this question on my own, as I am not the only mentor. The only thing I can say for sure is that we will talk it out. Us mentors have had quite a few discussions on Google Wave that have turned out very well, and I believe that this can continue. However, we are mentors for Tenmei, not the ruler of him. Should we get into a major conflict, I will try to reach a compromise with the group, but should even that fail, we will give Tenmei our options and I trust that he is capable of distinguishing what option is best for him.
(b) what range of actions you are willing to undertake as individuals and as a group
As an individual, I am willing to be an advisor to Tenmei, but I will not force him to follow what I say, as should he thinks what I say is not the best way, I cannot do much to force him to "obey" me. Tenmei should be unlikely to get into an argument, but should he do, I am willing to be a mediator, but I will not be part of the argument for his side, as the only possible outcome of me doing that is flaring up the argument more. I think the rest of the group will agree with me on this.
(c) how the "group" will work when Tenmei is also receiving private advice from individuals not specifically included in the group of mentors
I believe that if Tenmei trusts someone enough as to let that someone mentor him, I see no reason why I should disallow him to do so, but I will try to give some additional advice regarding the matter.

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


Comments by Doc James

[edit]

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

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

Clerk notes

[edit]
  • Could a clerk please notify all of the mentors, especially those who have not yet commented here (if I'm not mistaken, that's User:John Carter, User:McDoobAU93, User:Robofish, and User:Taivo), and ask them to post answers here to the questions Risker has posed below. As far as I can see, none of those questions have been answered except by Tenmei, and both Risker and myself would like to see independent responses from the mentors. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So done. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

[edit]
  • Tenmei, is it your plan for all of these people to be your mentors, or are you presenting a range of options in the hopes that ArbCom will designate which are acceptable? As well, your concision is appreciated, but there is no need to post word counts along with each of your comments. Steve Smith (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be helpful if the editors put forward as proposed mentors would chime in here before any decision is made; but I'll point out that a return to editing suitably assisted is a desirable outcome and would be looked upon favorably. — Coren (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also welcome suggestions from the suggested mentors about how this will work in practise.  Roger Davies talk 05:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note the comments of a few of the editors approached to act as mentors. I would like to know (a) how you will address differences amongst yourselves (a situation we have encountered in other mentoring situations); (b) what range of actions you are willing to undertake as individuals and as a group; (c) how the "group" will work when Tenmei is also receiving private advice from individuals not specifically included in the group of mentors. In answer to the question above, Tenmei's six-month topic ban on the subject of Tang Dynasty begins once the mentorship is approved. Risker (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tenmei, I have noted your response to me above; however, I would really like to hear from your own mentors how they will address, at the minimum, differences amongst themselves. I was observant of the challenges and issues that arose out of some previous mentorships where there was a large team of mentors, and I do not believe that anyone involved was really satisfied with the situation. One mentor would advise the editor to do X, and another mentor would disagree and say that Y was the right course, for example; or Mentor C would identify behaviour as blockable, while Mentor D thought it was a perfectly reasonable response. I can live with the idea of mentors returning to this board for clarification (and hope that we will be somewhat more responsive), but it's important to understand how this large a team will work for your benefit, Tenmei. I am very concerned about you receiving mixed or inconsistent messages. Risker (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This can't move forward until Risker's questions above are answered. Could a clerk please notify the editors who need to comment here. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tenmei, if you want DGG to comment here, by all means invite him to do so. As for your comments about "raising the bar", it is not unreasonable for us to ask the possible mentors to lay out here what they see as their role in all this. I count, so far, Doc James and Kraftlos (of those you list) and in addition to this, Nihonjoe and Coppertwig. The layout at User talk:Tenmei/Sub-page Alerts is impressive, but there needs to be some indication of how this will work, otherwise this risks becoming a time sink if it goes wrong. Carcharoth (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tenmei, I'm supportive of you resuming editing with mentors, but please be patient and wait for other arbitrators and those willing to mentor you to respond here. I realise it must be frustrating for you, but if you wait just a little bit longer and let others speak, then we may finally get something workable set up here. We want this to work, not collapse because it was not set up properly. Carcharoth (talk) 03:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, I'm not sure any mentorship program will work, considering the difficulties to get to this point. SirFozzie (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not entirely convinced that allowing Tenmei to return to editing would be a positive, especially given the comments he's made here. However, if the mentors are certain that they would be able to make a positive difference here, I'm willing to give it a shot. I'd need to see responses from all of them to Risker's questions, though, and that hasn't happened. I'd also like to know what efforts you (the mentors) will each make to ensure that Tenmei is continuing to be monitored in times of your absence; should several of you be temporarily inactive at the same time, what is your plan B? Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for Tenmei: As an extension to Risker's question C, would you be willing to identify these private mentors to your public mentors, so that if there is some disagreement between the two, the public mentors may contact them for discussion? Risker's questions address disunion amongst your public mentors, but when your private and public mentors disagree, I don't want this turning into a "mom said no, so let's ask dad" situation. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion

[edit]

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

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

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

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

Support
  1. Tenmei has made a genuine effort as directed by the Arbitration Committee to seek out suitable mentors, who have demonstrated their willingness to work with Tenmei. Risker (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Coren (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Carcharoth (talk) 03:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Shell babelfish 08:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Willing to give it a shot. KnightLago (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [talk] [prof] 01:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Roger Davies talk 16:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I am willing to see this tried, and will hold off on further comment until we see how it works out. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Per previous notes. SirFozzie (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse
Abstain
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Tang_Dynasty&oldid=1151319415"