Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 34
 | This is an archive of past Clarification and Amendment requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to file a new clarification or amendment request, you should follow the instructions at the top of this page. |
| Archive 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | → | Archive 40 |
Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed_of_light (November 2009)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by MBisanz talk at 13:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
- Tnxman307 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) diff
- Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) diff
Statement by MBisanz
Does a link to a discussion on a physics page with a description of it as an example of what can go wrong on Wikipedia violate a broad topic ban against participation in physics-related discussions? link, AE report.
I believe it does, as the purpose of a topic ban is that the user no longer has any involvement in the topic. Being able to go to another page and point at the topic under discussion, and characterize its nature, negates that purpose. Tnxman307 does not agree with this interpretation and has unblocked, and in light of the already-significant commentary in various places on this topic that has led a to good-faith disagreement between administrators, I believe it is useful to get clarification on the matter.
Statement by TenOfAllTrades
In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with an editor under ArbCom probation or a topic ban being involved in discussions of Wikipedia policy. However, the decision to participate in policy revision does not take place in a vacuum. The context of Brews' ongoing campaign to modify Wikipedia policy and guidelines is important, and bears on Brews' general probation:
- "...Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, Brews ohare repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum."
On or about 6 October 2009, Brews attempted to substantially modify a number of core Wikipedia policies. This would have been nearing the end of the speed of light arbitration, at around the time the proposed decision was being assembled. The effect of his proposed changes would have been to embed in policy a strict prohibition on conduct engaged in by Brews' perceived opponents. (He wished to bar any revert made without a talk page comment – even one fully explained by an appropriate edit summary – as a violation of WP:CIV. See also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Workshop#Reversion without adequate comment on Talk page and #The one-line Edit Summary is misused) Brews' proposal at WP:CIV failed, though a much-tempered version was eventually adopted: Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 15#Add civil reversion of text as an issue. For the record, this was my first encounter with Brews ohare. At the time, I was unaware that he was pursuing these changes as part of his arbitration campaign.
Immediately after the watered-down version was added to WP:CIV, Brews duplicated the text across at least four other pages (WP:NOT, WP:POV, WP:FRINGE, WP:OR) without any discussion. His edits were almost immediately reverted, by four different editors: Wikipedia talk:Civility#Proposed insertion on one-line Edit Summaries.
The speed of light arbitration closed on or about 20 October 2009. Between then and 26 October, Brews was largely engaged in arguing about his topic ban in an assortment of venues, as well as inserting himself in an AN/I discussion around another tendentious editor. From 26 October to 4 November, he was heavily involved in a fruitless attempt to modify WP:NOR to explicitly permit the inclusion of chains of deductive reasoning and logical syllogisms: Wikipedia talk:No original research#Logical deductions. The proposal was rejected, largely because the small number of proponents were unable to present satisfactory examples of the problem that would be solved. Brews noted that he was barred by his topic ban from presenting examples.
From roughly 4 November to the present, Brews has been attempting to implement (as editing guidelines) the proposals Wikipedia:Editing scientific articles and User talk:Brews ohare/Dealing with minority views. The former was explicitly intended by its major proponent (User:Count Iblis) to supplant WP:NOR as a 'local policy' on scientific articles; Iblis' attempt to impose it by hatnote template fiat led to an AN/I discussion and a TfD. The latter proposal seeks to enable interminable re-raising of arguments by proponents of fringe views.
Since the close of arbitration, Brews has made more than 500 edits. Of those, only 9 were (relatively minor) mainspace edits. He's also made three edits to article talk, one of which resulted in a block as a violation of his topic ban. Virtually all of Brews' remaining edits have been to contentious (and rejected) policy proposals which without exception tie directly back into the editing disputes and conduct which led to Brews' topic ban. He is simply carrying on the same fights that got him in trouble in the first place, soaking up massive amounts of time and effort on the part of other editors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Query to Brews. In your comments, you state "These are bold assertions by TenOfAllTrades, but none of these assertions has any basis in fact, and none are supported by any evidence from TenOfAllTrades." While we may differ on the interpretation of your actions and whether or not the conduct you have engaged in meets the minimum standards set out in your probation (a determination that, hopefully, this request for clarification will address), I don't believe that I have misstated any of the facts of the case. Please notify me if you find any error in any statement of fact above. That is, are there any significant errors or omissions in the summary of dates and pages which you have edited? Are there any substantial contributions you have made to the project since the close of Arbitration which my statement omits? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Note to Arbs, requesting additional clarification. I am extremely uncomfortable with Brews editing – and editorializing – the record of his blocks here. In particular, I don't find that the early lifting of Brews' first block (with this comment by the blocking admin) is well summarized by Brews' short comment "Repealed" and its implication that this block does not count towards his 'quota'. Can we have a determination on this point, as well? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
A final note to the Arbs. It appears aside from Coren's insightful comment, there is unlikely to be any attention or action on the part of ArbCom resulting from this request. Since this request was posted three days ago, Brews ohare has made at least forty edits rewriting and rearranging his statement; it's not worth my time and effort to try to keep up anymore. I'll note that since this request hasn't gotten a formal response, there's now another request at WP:AE. I fear that such requests will continue as long as Brews is unchecked in using Wikipedia as some combination of personal blog, soapbox, and battleground. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by User:Count Iblis
I gave a detailed explanation on Tnxman307's talk page why this should not count as a violation of the topic ban. But apart from this incident, there is something else going on that has to be addressed by Arbcom. Brews is an engineering professor whose interests lie within the scope of his topic ban. The problems that Brews caused had to do with him dominating the talk page of the speed of light page in order to get his way. We have to understand that Brews, while an engineering professor, was not a expert in that topic and was perceived to be wrong by most editors (including me).
It was my opinion that the topic ban from all physics pages was to broad and could only have two consequences. Either Brews would leave Wikipedia, or he would decide to hang on but then probably being involved in some way on policy pages, because that's the only thing he did besides editing physics articles before his topic ban. The latter has happened.
Then that triggered comments from other editors on his talk page who tried to talk him out of contributing to policy discussions or writing essays proposing new guidelines etc. etc. Now, it is my opinion that these sorts of comments on his talk page are causing tentions and then new conflicts to flare up. Inevitably the old Arbcom case is made an issue by these other editors and then you also get the issue from time to time of how Brews should reply to such comments given his topic ban.
If Brews contributes to the essay WP:ESCA (originally written up by me and Brews contributed here before his topic ban) or its talk page, and he does not dominate the talk page there or misbehave in any other way, then what business is it for another editor who is not participating with WP:ESCA to write to him that he should stop editing there? It would be different if a few involved editor there would complain about Brews. In such a context it would also be ok. if an uninvolved editor would point out to Brews that he his behaviving in a problematic way.
But because Brews is now simply being told to get away from such policy pages without any dispruption caused by Brews, such advice, even if given with all of the good intentions, will be perceived to be hostile. This is just a normal human reaction. If you're sitting in a cafe and someone tells you to get away from here as you're just a trouble maker then, without any trouble actually being made by you, would you not become angry?
If, despite my analysis, Arbcom really does think that Brews should not contribute to policy pages, then I think they have to modify his topic ban. If the goal is to make sure Brews only contributes to wiki articles, then simply impose a topic ban on all policy related pages and appoint a mentor who will have to approve or deny requests by Brews to edit an article. The physics topic ban would be lifted and replaced by the mentoring argeement. The mentor has to be someone familiar to the speed of light case, who understands physics and can tell what is potentially problematic and what is not. It could e.g. be Finell, me , Headbomb, A di M, or one of the other regulars at Wikiproject physics. Count Iblis (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
New comment
It has been suggested here by some that Brews is fighting old battles by contributing to policy pages. Let me make it very clear that on WP:ESCA, where the major contributors are Michael C. Price Likebox and me, we all strongly disagree with what Brews was trying to get edited in the speed of light article. Also, we are against one editor dominating talk pages to get his way. Brews contributing to WP:ESCA has also not led to problems on that page. So, it simply cannot be true that Brews could be fighting some "old battle" on that page. Count Iblis (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Dicklyon
Dicklyon wrote:
The intent was to get him to drop his arguments about how he should be able to edit science articles his way, not to get him to "go meta" on them, which is what he did by taking the fight to the policy pages.
This is extremely misleading. It is true that Brews domination of talk pages was problematic. But nothing Brews has argued recently for on policy pages was in favor of that kind of conduct. Dicklyon and Brews have often disagreed. Dicklyon reverting edits by Brews simply because he could not find exact quotes using his text editor's search facility while not actually reading the source was often not justified and Dicklyon has continued in that kind of behavior to this day.
Addressing this on the WP:ESCA page by Brews in collaboration with me, Michal C. Price, Likebox is not at all trying to re-argue the Arbcom case at all. This is a very relevant point when editing science articles. Also, you can hardly think of greater opponent to Brews than Michael C. Price when it comes to the old speed of light case.
To be fair, Dicklyon has said to me that Brews' editing style (i.e. a huge number of edits per day) led him to not read the sources and look for literal quotes instead. But there is no excuse for Dicklyon to have behaved in this way in recent cases. E.g., ironically enough when editing the essay ESCA, see here. The "somebody" mentioned here is Dicklyon.
We all know that Dicklyon doesn't like this essay. He has argued that this essay is linked to the Arbcom case, which it absolutely is not. You can point that out 100 times, giving e.g my motivations that are based on old problems with thermodynamics articles etc., but all Dicklyon sees is Brews and the old speed of light case. In his mind everything revolves around that.
So, we should then ask ourselves: Who are these people who refuse to drop their sticks? Count Iblis (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion: Modify the topic ban
I still do not understand the rationale of this enormously wide topic ban that prevents an engineering professor from contributing to anything within his expertise and interest. He can now only contribute to Wikipedia as any other lay person, but that's not a clever way to use the human potential here.
So, I would suggest that the topic ban be modified as follows. Brews agrees not to edit any page related to Wiki-policies. While the physics topic ban formally stands, an exception is made for creating new physics related articles on his user space. Such articles can also be existing articles that Brews wants to rewrite. Those articles can only be moved into Wikipedia after approval by Arbcom who will consult with editors at Wiki-project physics. After the move, Brews is no longer allowed to edit the article, as his physics topic still stands.
Note that this way of editing works far better for most physics or math related pages than for other pages. On most such pages editing is infrequent and major edits are done very infrequently by one editor at a time. The situation on the speed of light page was very atypical. A typical example of how editing a physics page proceeds, could e.g. be this page. From the articles editing history you see that there had been major rewrite in May 2008 by me. Almost all of the content in the article today is from that rewrite. If you look at the verion before that, you'll see that it very slowly evolved from the first version in 2004 and then a rewrite in 2005.
If Brews is allowed to edit in the proposed way, there is no way Brews can disrupt anything on Wikipedia. New articles that most others here won't write are created, so that's a positive thing. Articles that have not been edited for a years and are frozen into a "stub state" can be expanded. Brews is also forced to distance himsef from a topic after contributing to it, as his topic ban still stands: He can no longer edit "his" article after it has been released. That is a far more relevant test for Brews than letting Brews contribute to something outside of his interests. Naturally, you'll feel more protective of a topic you care about. Here on Wikipedia, you need to learn that others can edit that topic and change it potentially in a direction you don't like.
Some rules for editing on his userspace will have to be agreed to. I think only Brews should edit his article there, while anyone can comment on the talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Headbomb
Since I made the AE request, there's some things I need to clarify.
First is the lack of context of my AE request, which I assumed obvious (but in retrospective isn't). TenOfAllTrades gave it above. It's not that policy-proposal from Brews is problematic in and of itself, or that Brews monopolizes the discussion, it's since his ARBCOM case, Brews' effort have been directed at changing policy to accommodate his behaviour rather than change his behaviour to accommodate policy. When one attempt fails, he immediatly goes to making another.
Second is that in retrospective, a clarification request would have been better than going straight to AE. While I do not feel that some form of AE is out of place, I wish I remembered about clarifications. Not all venues have been exhausted, and so blocking at this point is probably overkill. So if we could proceed as if my AE was a clarification request instead, that would be nice. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 15:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Apparently Brews simply is incapable of dropping the stick. [1] [2]. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by JzG
There is a point here which requires some consideration, whether by the committee or by the community I would not like to say. It is this: when someone has run through the full gamut of dispute resolution, up to and including ArbCom, and has had their claims rejected at each stage, is there a point where they need to drop the stick and back away fomr the deceased equine or face being banned? This is not the first case of a user whose complaints have been rejected at every venue but who continues to user "their" user space to present their opinion that, whatever everybody else might say, they are right. The inability to drop a dispute even when it's patently obvious that you have lost with no real hope of redemption, is not a healthy sign. Guy (Help!) 17:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Brews_ohare
The remedies against me are found here. They should be examined, because they have not been violated or tested, despite claims to the contrary. I also wish to point out that prior to the recent distractions over litigation, of which this is an example and Case/Speed of light another, I have made a great number of extensive contributions to WP, as pursuit of my contribution log will indicate. My User page refers to a small sample of these, and also shows some of the figures I have contributed. I raise this point because some seem to want to suggest my only activity on WP is this kind of ridiculous time sink.
As a preamble to explain my recent goals on WP, here is how I have explained my user space essay to Finell:
- "You may understand that I see the conduct of Talk pages to be problematic. They tend to be contentious, rather than cooperative. That is a tendency of nature under some circumstances, to interpret opposition as attack. What one wants is to interpret opposition as an opportunity to develop a more nuanced view or to add dimension to the topic. There is a good deal more satisfaction in seeing an article become more encompassing and authoritative, than in trumping some editor by a cute turn of phrase or chasing them off.
- So I ask you how one might promote the construction of articles as a greater good than massaging ego? My thought with my Essay was to promote an environment where this would happen if Talk pages followed a paradigm of some kind.
- I would rather make some contribution to this problem, which I view as major, than to edit an obscure topic. I realize that is an undertaking, and that my Essay is only a step."
Unfortunately, even this User space activity has resulted in frivolous actions to harass me, not to protect WP. My response to MBisanz can be found here, where I present a simple argument that his blocking action violates WP:Block in spirit as well as to the letter. According to WP:Block: Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users.
Headbomb, TenOfAllTrades and some others seem to think that some discussion of guidelines or policies that actually led to modification of those guidelines might conceivably lead to a reversal of the bans and remedies against me, and that therefore my participation in such discussions is disruptive. It would seem that the critics of my participation believe me to be so persuasive that I could talk the WP community into changing the guidelines just to suit me and my case! If change occurs, common sense and history shows that any change will be a WP community decision based on the common good of WP, and will never be made to accommodate a single user. In addition, I have never entered these discussions to plead my case nor to raise the issues of my remedies. This argument that the simple fact of my participation in ongoing discussions is disruptive, even when conducted within WP guidelines, is silly.
Next, I wish to address comments by TenOfAllTrades, who presents a history of my activity and contends that this history is one of disruption to WP. His argument boils down to his view that my participation on Talk pages such as those for WP:Civil, WP:ESCA, and WP:AN/I are somehow violations of the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum. TenOfAllTrades further contends that I am simply carrying on the same fights that got him in trouble in the first place. These are bold assertions by TenOfAllTrades, but none of these assertions has any basis in fact, and none are supported by any evidence from TenOfAllTrades.
The fact is that my participation has been entirely civil, well within the normal range of editor activity in such discussion, and beyond any reproach. If TenOfAllTrades is to be taken seriously, some evidence of misbehavior is needed.
TenOfAllTrades also says: "From roughly 4 November to the present, Brews has been attempting to implement (as editing guidelines) the proposals Wikipedia:Editing scientific articles and User talk:Brews ohare/Dealing with minority views." This statement is false. I have contributed to discussion aimed at clarification of language in the essay (not guideline) WP:ESCA, but I have made no attempt to implement WP:ESCA as a guideline and my user page essay User talk:Brews ohare/Dealing with minority views is far from reaching WP main space even as an essay. I do not understand why TenOfAllTrades wishes to stretch the truth to gain further restrictions upon my activities where no harm is being done to anyone, to WP, and least of all to TenOfAllTrades.
With unrecognized irony, TenOfAllTrades concludes by asking "Are there any substantial contributions you have made to the project since the close of Arbitration which my statement omits? " when, in fact, TenOfAllTrades is making every possible effort to curtail my activity as much as possible.
Next, I wish to address the claims by Headbomb, who says Brews' efforts are directed at changing policy to accommodate his behavior rather than change his behavior to accommodate policy. Headbomb brought a frivolous action against me, enforced by MBisanz, to which I replied here.
It is undeniable that I have endeavored to change policy via discussions on Talk pages. This activity has been undertaken by normal means, using Talk pages to engage other editors to try to build some awareness of what I see as defects in policy. It is not special pleading, and no evidence of special pleading has been advanced. Discussion of general policy issues is a normal process, it is not disruptive, and at best could improve WP editing environment. At worst, my efforts will be ignored.
Of course, my notion of defects in WP policies are born of my experience on WP: where else would they come from? That is not an indication that I am "refighting old battles". I see no basis for calling such activity disruptive, or a violation of sanctions against me.
As for modifying my behavior, I believe there is no evidence of misbehavior on my part, and I challenge Headbomb, TenOfAllTrades or any other editor to present evidence to the contrary from the period I have been under sanction.
In sum, although there is much rhetoric here from Headbomb and from TenOfAllTrades, there is absolutely no substance and no evidence for any assertions that I am a problem, nor that I have violated any aspect of my topic ban. These two editors simply are looking for trouble because they expect to find it.
Next, I wish to respond to the generalities by JzG, who appears to think that I am continuing to fight against the Arbcom ruling and remedies. That is a complete misconception of my activity born of reading the unsupported accusations by Headbomb and TenOfAllTrades, namely accusations that I have merely "repackaged" these quarrels and carry them on. That is not true, as examination of my activity shows, and absolutely no evidence to support such a view has been advanced.
Finally, I wish to address comments by Ncmvocalist. Of course I can agree to replace naming an example page with a physics title by some other different page, unrelated to physics by any stretch of imagination, but still an example where similar kinds of editing brouhahas appear, with a clash of minority and majority views that leads to strife. (My guess is that they are legion, because present WP policy doesn't provide effective guidance.) The discussions on WP:Civil WP:NOR WP:ESCA that I've engaged in are unrelated to physics, so other examples work just as well. Brews ohare (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Ncmvocalist wishes to rewrite the sanctions to read: "the remedies wanted you to edit in an unrelated area constructively". So far as I can tell, I am already engaged in an "unrelated area" and my contributions to discussion are entirely constructive. No evidence has been presented otherwise. Brews ohare (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Ncmvocalist says Brews ohare's attempt to amend those standards is obviously not going to be met with a favourable response when it is so closely related to the arbitration remedy. Here again, my participation in discussions on Talk pages within WP policies and guidelines simply as a normal participant is not disruptive. The claim that the discussion "is close to my arbitration remedy" seems to suggest special pleading, which certainly has not occurred. If my thoughts are not met favorably, so be it: they will have no effect. If my thoughts have some resonance, perhaps WP will benefit from some general additions or deletions in policy or guidelines. Obviously, that is a WP community decision, and pre-empting my participation will not benefit WP in any way. If editors on a Talk page find my comments irrelevant, they will say so, or ignore me. Brews ohare (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
- Request for Coren: You will understand that your prejudicial dramatic sketch and elliptical phrases of vague content do not help me to follow your thoughts, and make it problematic for me to "avoid pushing an agenda" that "leaves you no choice". Please explain to me what is my "agenda"? And, which "dead horse" am I beating, specifically, please? And if I follow my suggestion above to avoid any connection to physics-related topics, does that fix things, and if not, why not? IMO, no part of the discussions above establish any wrong doing. If you believe there is actual evidence for wrongdoing (not mere assertion), please point it out specifically and explain why it constitutes a violation of the remedies against me, in particular, illustrations that Brews_ohare repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum. Identify which WP guidelines or policies are violated or how the sanctions have been broken. Then I will avoid it in future. Thank you for clarification. Brews ohare (talk) 01:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- Rlevse • Talk: I have requested clarification of just what "it" is and what violations "it" expresses, and what evidence for "it" there may be. No answer is forthcoming, only an inappropriate, gutter-level description of my activities as vaguely analogous with occurrences in a dark alley. Brews ohare (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Response to Tznkai: Your remarks indicate a preoccupation with your authority to do as you wish, and absolutely no interest in taking my views as a serous expression of a point of view that should be considered or discussed. Your personal opinion is all that matters, and you refuse to examine the facts in the matter and to assemble them to see if they support your views. Discussion is not even a thought. You make allegations based upon your ideas about what is happening and make no effort whatsoever to examine any other viewpoint. There is absolutely no point in inviting a statement from other editors; only yours matters, and your "authority", which is conferred upon you by mistaken faith in your judgment.
Response to Vassayana: Your blanking of my links to Xavexgoem's unblock as "grossly misleading" is mischaracterized as the link leads directly to the full diff where the unblock was made. Brews ohare (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC) It is not clear to me whether your remarks are to be taken as the closing of this action, and it is not clear to me if you have concluded that no clarification is necessary as the original statement of remedies was clear enough. Brews ohare (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
You have said:
- "Stop commenting about the speed of light and other physics conflicts you or David Tombe have had. Stop commenting about the editing environment in those areas. Stop commenting about all of it. Just stop. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the application of the sanctions, this is the bed that you have made for yourself by refusing to let this go and abide by the full spirit of your topic ban."
As I have found repeatedly in WP proceedings, there is no grasp of the facts of the matter. In particular, I have not commented even once about the speed of light or the associated physics conflicts. That is a total misconception, and you will find no diff anywhere to support it. Second, I have not been commenting about the "editing environment in those areas". I have commented about the general conduct of the Talk pages as applied to all Talk pages, and my remarks are completely general and not specific to speed of light or my bans. The point under discussion by me and others, that Talk page conduct sometimes goes out of control and needs some fixing, is the subject of my essay Dealing with mnority views. Despite repeated attempts to paint this essay as in conflict with my probation, it is a general essay unrelated to this probation, a simple fact that administrators are incapable of registering. Far from my agreeing or disagreeing with my sanctions, my actions are entirely related to attempts to improve the conduct of Talk pages and reduce the sources of friction that necessitate Admin intrusion. Rather than agree that some improvement is needed, all Admins that I have encountered lately take the view that everything is just dandy and that no discussion, no matter how objective or detached, is an intrusion upon their turf. This resistance, in my opinion, at bottom has no connection to myself or to my being on probation. It simply is obstruction stemming from a lack of imagination sufficient to entertain some alternatives to the status quo. Brews ohare (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
General observation: Although a number of administrators recommend I devote myself to articles unrelated to WP guidelines or policies, and unrelated to "physics based articles, broadly conceived", in fact I cannot do that because a site-wide ban upon me has been imposed by Tznkai. Brews ohare (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist
The topic ban specifically banned Brew ohares from "all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed." "topics" is not another word for pages or talk pages - it is topics. Editors who are topic banned should be making every attempt to stay as far away from this topic (even mentioning it) for the duration for which they are banned. The questions that need answers in order for the next step of resolution: Can Brew ohares demonstrate that she can edit (under the current system of editing) on a totally different topic without issues? That is, is she both willing and able to do so? If unlikely, are the current remedies (or the way in which they are being enforced so far) sufficient? Perhaps the same could be asked of David Tombe. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Brews, in spirit, the remedies wanted you to edit in an unrelated area constructively, while strictly adhering to, the purpose of Wikipedia and expected standards of behavior and decorum (common-sensically, without your own changes to those standards). WP:CIVIL covers a number of expected standards of behavior and decorum - for Brew ohares to then attempt to amend those standards is obviously not going to be met with a favourable response when it is so closely related to the arbitration remedy; the same went for the (7-9 November) discussion on Brews talk page which repeatedly discussed the arb-case and topic. Are the sanctioned editors unable to adhere to the standards for too long - is that why Brews has begun proposing amendments to them? Users tried to assume not, and devoted a lot of time to responding to Brews comments at the policy discussion, and closed it following a massive number of opposes. Brews then decided to respond with this. Are the contributions on those pages actually constructive? I wonder. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
- Brew ohares response says it all; my comment should now be considered as an echo of the request for arbs to do the needful. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Clerk note - As per the notice at the top of the page, threaded discussion is not permitted and the discussion that took place in this section has been deleted. Manning (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Finell
The only issue presented in this request for clarification is whether the Arbitrators should clarify the physics-related topic bans imposed in this case.
- Brews ohare topic banned: "Brews ohare (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed, for twelve months."
- David Tombe topic banned: "David Tombe (talk · contribs) is topic banned from all physics-related pages and topics, broadly construed, for twelve months."
Although the topic bans quoted above seem clear enough to me, the 3 instances in which they have been applied (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions), or misapplied, suggests that clarification is needed. (For the record, I supported, and still support, both topic bans.)
In the instance that prompted this request for clarification, MBisanz blocked Brews ohare for violating his topic ban by making the following statement at User talk:Brews ohare/Dealing with minority views (the Talk page for an essay that Brews is drafting in his user space):
—Finell: I believe that battlegrounds do develop on Talk pages, and a problem exists. This essay is not a rehash of Speed of light arbitration, although the behavior on Talk:Speed of light certainly is an example of what can go wrong when tempers rise and matters go to arbitration.[3]
Brews' talk page was not a "physics-related" page, and he was not engaged in a "physics-related" topic or discussion, however broadly "physics-related" may be construed. According to MBisanz, however, Brews' mention of Talk: Speed of light as an example of poor talk page behavior, which is the subject of Brews' draft essay, violated his topic ban.[4]
Previously, Tombe complained at AN/I about a remark that another user made about him at Wikipedia talk:Editing scientific articles: that when challenged to debate physics, Tombe resorted to Nazi insults.[5] (While has Tombe resorted to Nazi insults several times, there is nothing that he would rather do than debate his notions of physics). Tznkai found that Tombe's complaint at AN/I violated his physics topic ban. Tznkai also claimed that, as a admin, he had discretion to interpret and to broaden the Arbitrators' topic ban. In that incident, 2 admins, Tznkai and Beeblebrox, appear to argue that Tombe violated his physics topic ban by reading Wikipedia talk:Editing scientific articles, and thereby discovering the remark of which he complained, because it was physics related. (Tznkai also made findings that Tombe was disruptive and tendentious. I have no quarrel with those.)
In my opinion, the administrators' interpretations of the topic bans in the 2 instances discussed above were overly broad.
Before that, Xavexgoem blocked Brews for the following post at Talk:Speed of light:
For some reason, links to Free space do not seem to be working and lead instead to: 404 error: File not found. Brews ohare (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[6]
Talk: Speed of light is unquestionably a physics-related page, and Brews' edit of it violated his topic ban. But did this well intentioned edit warrant a block? I'm not one to waive WP:IAR around (in fact, I think this is the first time I have ever invoked it), but pointing out a non-functioning wiki-link ought to be excusable under WP:IAR. —Finell (talk) 01:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Reply to Brews
In reply to Brews' latest updates of his statement above[7][8]:
- Vassyana did not "blank" your "links [sic: there was only one link] to Xavexgoem's unblock". She copied the same link in her correction of your entry.
- Vassyana did not say that your link, or anything, was "grossly misleading". She did "correct [your] entry", per her edit comment. It was incorrect, indeed misleading, of you to say that your block was "Repealed". It wasn't. You were blocked, then you were unblocked. Vassyana's revision accurately described what occurred.
- Your characterization, as "Repealed," of your second block and unblock was equally misleading, although no one has corrected it yet. In fact, one admin blocked you, another unblocked you.
- I saw your "Repealed" mischaracterizations when you made them. I decided not to point them out, because I didn't want to add to your troubles. However, since you now lash out at Vassyana unfairly, with misinformation of your own making, I feel compelled to respond.
- Throughout the arbitration, you repeatedly complained about others' allegedly misrepresenting what you said, or mis-attributing Tombe's position as yours. You claimed that this was uncivil. You tried to change policies or guidelines to prevent such behavior. Yet here you do exactly the same thing.
- This is another example of how you prolong and exacerbate disputes, and also waste other editors' time (I had more worthwhile things to do with the last 25 minutes). This behavior, and your other tendentious behavior, is how you got yourself in disputes and trouble on several physics talk pages, how you got yourself in even more trouble by your disruptive conduct in the arbitration, why most of the editors you deal with are fed up with you, and why other editors and admins initiate complaints against you and sanction you (even though their interpretation of your topic ban is, in my opinion, overbroad). It is not because others are prejudiced against you: you earn others' criticism, and eventual enmity. And it is not because others wish to suppress what you have to say: ordinary consensus does with that.
- It is past time for you to learn how to contribute and to get along in this community in compliance with this community's norms. Otherwise, it is time for you to leave.
- Note how, until now, my statement supported your position in this request for clarification. Note your behavior that prompted this statement. Note the causal relationship. —Finell 19:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Tznkai
Finell made a few misstatements, but the thrust of it is correct. I can (as clarified by arbcom), have, and will continue to use my reasonable discretion to interpret topic bans. The general probation provision in Speed of Light gives me the authorization to impose sanctions at my discretion. Y'all have the authority to overturn them, of course, by I don't know why you would.
As far as I'm concerned, the overall message given by the rememdies is "We (arbcom) think these two (David Tombe and Brews ohare)need to shape up. We don't really think they will, but we're giving them the chance, but we're also getting them away from a topic area they clearly cannot handle. We're going to let those poor sods who patrol WP:AE figure out what to do, but we would be completely unsurprised if they continue to act up."
I'm certain that both of them are on a one way track to indefinite blocks because neither has shown interest in anything but the topic areas they got in trouble in. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and these two ain't working with the rest of us.--Tznkai (talk) 06:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Addendum: I may have misspoke. David Tombe has made some edits to Latin Monetary Union.--Tznkai (talk) 06:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Further comment: Brews ohare is apparently under the impression that he can get somewhere by painting me as someone arrogant and self concerned with his own power, etc etc, put in your favorite joke about administrators and Kool-aid here. (As aside, does anyone worry a defamation suit from Kraft foods, or are we protected?). Lets just assume its all true, because this is exactly how it works. Discretionary sanctions is a situation where ArbCom sketches an outline of a sanction, sometimes better than others, and throws the thus sanctioned to the wolves (us uninvolved admins). WP:AE is regularly littered with long rants, thin evidence, lots of demands and justifications, and thats just from the actually helpful outside voices. I do my best, I assume other admins as well, to research as appropriate, read the whole damn thing even when its painful and frustrating, leave room for the comments of others, and otherwise do our best to act correctly and keep ourselves open to criticism. This would be despite the fact that these editors have already been sanctioned for bad behavior. Why we should we have to be the defenders of your case decisions, as well as the defenders of our own actions, for problems that the rest community and you have shouldered onto us few? This is a gratuity we give to the community as a whole, a responsibility shouldered despite the serious lack of community and ArbCom support for our labors.--Tznkai (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Moving forward
I am willing to suspend the current restriction and replace it with something along the lines of the following:
Brews ohare is indefinitely restricted from editing Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces. (Exceptions listed below) Brews ohare is restricted from editing any namespaces to begin, or comment on physics related content, disputes stemming from physics-related content, meta-discussion or meta-content (policy, guidelines, essays, polls, RfCs and the like) concerning the editing of scientific topics in general, or physics in particular, or the recognition of minority views. As always, there a recognized exception for Arbitration proceedings concerning the Brews ohare (up to the discretion of the Arbitration Committee and appropriate clerks), as well as as the natural exception for responding to administrative threads seeking to sanction Brews ohare, as well as participating in Arbitration related elections and election discussions. This sanction will be reviewed in two weeks.
This is adapted from my interpretation/extension (depending on your point-of=view) of David Tombe's topic ban, and will give Brews ohare a fair chance to prove if he is capable of leaving the troublesome areas alone and finding something productive and ideally, fun to do. An alternative of course, is to simply suspend sanction without replacing it and seeing where the chips fall.--Tznkai (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Update
I am suspending my interim restriction of Brews ohare and replacing it with the widened topic ban listed in my comments immediately above. I've read Count Iblis' idea, and I think it is not a particularly good one, though I see the general principle suggested. Lets see what happens in the next two weeks.--Tznkai (talk) 07:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Dicklyon
I thought it was a mistake for the ArbCom to treat the Brews ohare problem as topical, and said so several times during the arbitration. The remedy to avoid "physics...broadly construed" should be adequate, however, as long as the "broadly construed" leads to appropriate enforcement. The intent was to get him to drop his arguments about how he should be able to edit science articles his way, not to get him to "go meta" on them, which is what he did by taking the fight to the policy pages. As someone said, if he's not willing to WP:LETGO and drop the stick, we shouldn't be giving him the ability to continue disrupting normal processes. Dicklyon (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Jehochman
There is no indication whatsoever that Brews will step down from the soapbox and become a productive editor. Why do we continually permit the waste of volunteer time by users whose signal to noise ratio is exceptionally poor? If a matter comes to arbitration, decide! Don't just kick the can down the road. Jehochman Talk 17:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Xavexgoem
Regarding my block: It was not repealed. I lowered the length, thinking that the point had gotten across. I will state again, as I did at the AN/I thread: It's common for newly-remedied editors to push their boundaries, and thereby allow themselves greater access despite their ban. While this is a "slippery slope" argument, it's happened enough in the past to warrant a categorical approach.
here is the diff where brews ohare cited the block as repealed. This was 2 weeks after the block, and there was no edit summary. This is a slippery slope.
Statement by Durova
Last night Count Iblis initiated a thread at my user talk that had the header "Need your support for Arbcom appeal".[9] I was uncomfortable with the appearance of canvassing, which may have been unintentional, and declined the request while requesting a refactor. This person did not refactor, but followed up with phrases such as "you should" and "what you could do". To the best of my recollection I have no prior involvement in this dispute and no prior contact with Count Iblis.
Stating for the record that I do not welcome that contact. The tone of the request is unsavory and appears to be poorly conceived. Suppose I had time to delve into the matter and agreed with Count Iblis? Honest input would look like bias and prejudice after that invitation. Durova369 18:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Count Iblis posted again to my user talk while I was posting here. Apparently he is a non-native English speaker and miscommunication occurred. No harm done, but I have asked him not to contact me again about this matter. Durova369 18:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Clerk notes
- Recused MBisanz talk 19:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Could a clerk please move Brew's comment below to the relevant place?--Tznkai (talk) 06:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Arbitrator views and discussion
- Comment; I would tend to agree that the specific incident of pointing to the talk page of a banned topic while discussing policy was not a violation of the letter of the sanction. That being said, it drags the spirit of the sanction into a dark alley and beats it senseless before having its way with it. Brews ohare, you would do well to listen to the oft repeated advice to stop beating the dead horse and move on. I would rather not have to tighten your restriction or impose new ones, but if you insist on pushing an agenda (however right you believe it may be) then we will have no choice. — Coren (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment; Agree with Coren. Brews, I suggest you give it a rest and move on. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
|
- Simple clarification: Tznakai's actions are within the scope of enforcement. As an arbitrator, I recognize the validity of the sanctions imposed. This is just becoming a repeat of the same arguments raised during the arbitration case. Since no new information nor new persuasive arguments have been presented, I see nothing further to clarify or consider. See my full comments above for more detailed responses and rationales. Vassyana (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Brews ohare, have you considered picking a topic completely unrelated to physics and editing that for a couple of months, and then appealing your topic ban on the basis of good behaviour in those few months? What I'm looking for is evidence that you can do that. I also mentioned towards the end of the arbitration case that I would look favourably on an appeal where you would be able to work on images related to physics. Would you consider any of those approaches, rather than working on a userspace essay relating to policy on editing, especially an essay that touches on areas you were sanctioned for? Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: If I were brews, I would take Carc's note above to heart. Wizardman 06:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: I concur with all of my colleagues above. Brews, please follow the advice provided here; Carcharoth has made suggestions on how you can contribute in a constructive manner. If you can't do so, then it may be necessary to consider more drastic sanctions such as a possible site ban. I agree with Vassyana that Tznkai's actions were within administrator discretion. Risker (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: I agree with almost everything posted above, particularly Coren and Vassyana's remarks. Wikipedia is not a free speech forum, but is a project directed toward advancing collaborative encyclopedia articles. Because of user's descriptiveness in one subject, user was banned from participating in that subject. I do not believe that this violates the letter of our restriction, but it is testing the limits enough that I wonder whether the restriction was broad enough. Further testing will almost undoubtedly lead to expressly broader restrictions. User should move on. Cool Hand Luke 18:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I generally agree with all the preceding arbitrator comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles (December 2009)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Natet/c at 11:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Nate1481 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- all editors on British National Party and Talk:British National Party
Statement by Nate1481
Several and I believe a large majority of users have stated views that the BNP is not particularly linked to The Troubles and not more so than any British or Irish political party, so adding the {{Troubles restriction}} banner seems highly inappropriate. The article is currently being edited 'aggressively' by several editors, but also discussed, reasonably productively, on the talk page and while some editing restirction might be appropriate, but these should be brought though the normal methods, not by expanding another controversial area. --Natet/c 11:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Addition
Having read more of the other discussions in an attempt to understand the reasoning for adding this tag. it seems to be that it is due to the article being edited by editors who have had disputes elsewhere. This seems again to be expanding the intent of the original ruling; if the Arbitrators wanted restrictions should be placed on specific editors then it would have been in the ruling, but it seems that as that was not the case, so the troubles template and rules was added to this article so as to enforce rules on them when editing in other areas; with the collateral effect on a large number of other editors who where not involved (or even aware) or the original dispute until the template was added. In the is case the creep seems to have been the use of rules aimed at a specific set of articles being used to control all edits by those editors in the original dispute. If an admin feels that the editors are expanding into to disrupting other articles then going back and asking for sanctions against those editors would be the sensible course of action. In this case I had not seen any significant disruptive behaviour, (I have not reviewed all edits by the contributors only looked at the history of the article) there were strong opinions, and possibly ill-judged comments and edits, but nothing that came across as Bad Faith edits and there was constructive progress on the talk page. --Natet/c 17:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Reply to Vassyana
How are we ment to resolve it "at community level"? There is a consensus on the talk page to remove the banner & a debate as to if the restrictions are helpful (in my view they are not), I came here as was suggested on the admin notice board and wanted to know if this was how to request a review of admin assigning the rules to an article. --Natet/c 09:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by BritishWatcher
There is no reason at all for the BNP article to be listed as "troubles related". The British National Party is a right wing political party in the United Kingdom, they are not a loyalist paramilitary group in Northern Ireland. The article mentions the BNPs policy towards Ireland, but all political parties in the UK have policies towards Ireland Conservative party (UK), Liberal Democrats. Labour party (UK) all mention Ireland yet they would never be classed as troubles related. The edit wars that were taking place on that article had nothing to do with Ireland matters, it was about the fact the BNP is a right wing racist whites only political party.
If the BNP article can be considered troubles related then its clearly not what arbcom originally agreed to. The sanctions have been in place for about two years and only now has the BNP became a "troubles related article"? Its important to remember how this all came about.
The first mentions of the troubles on the BNP talk page from what i can see was on the 16th of November 2009 by User:Off2riorob. He was moaning about people being anti BNP and he said..
- "what is it about the irish troubles editors editing this article, I don't get it? why is that? Is it an IRA thing?" [10]
The suggestion that anyones position on that page was an "IRA thing" was rather offensive, i am certainly no supporter of a terrorist organisation and i do not think others involved on the article at the time were either. The vast majority of the British people hate the BNP, the idea that article is being influenced by IRA supporters was rather stange and this has nothing to do with "British nationalism towards Ireland". Anyway he went on to mention troubles related editors again [11], and then he said..
- "you good day are also involved in the troubles editing, please comment as to the reason the editors involed in those articles are involved here, should I ask Elonka to add this article as troubled related conditions as so many of the editors involved in those disputes are editing here?"[12]
Is it really acceptable to claim an article is troubles related just because several editors are also involved in the troubles articles? If that is possible then any article we go to could have such sanctions imposed, even things that are nothing to do with Britain and Ireland. He made a couple more comments about The troubles editors and then Elonka came along and said the article was troubles related, with NO debate.[13] The only reason Elonka did that was because of Off2riorob.
This matter needs clearing up. I am concerned at this very moment Elonka is seeking to have admin powers expanded in relations to the troubles yet the current powers are being misused. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_The_Troubles Also some of Elonkas comments about the action taken concern me and i think the justification is clearly not in line with the current arbcom ruling.
- "My attention was drawn to the article because of the recent edit-warring, which appeared to be an overflow dispute with involved editors who routinely edit Troubles-related articles. The article also falls within the proper scope. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, and the subsequent community amendment in October 2008, the scope of the case is defined as, "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related." The article British National Party is clearly within that scope. Just search for the term "Ireland" in the article and read about the Party's policies. " [14]
That basically says if it mentions Ireland it can be considered related.
and
- "It doesn't have to be The Troubles-related to be within the scope of the case." [15]
Which basically says The troubles sanctions can be imposed on articles that have nothing to do with The Troubles.
Anyway clarification on this matter would be very useful. In particular the BNP article needs to be correctly removed from "troubles related" articles, but a more general clarification about what is and is not reasonably connected to the troubles would be useful. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by slatersteven
The link between this page and "the troubles" is tenuous at best. Moreover the dispute (and indead the complaint) that led to this had nothing to do with the rather limited amount the articel has to say about the troubles. It was in reaction to the appearance of some edds who had a history on "troubles" realted pages (the actual dispute was over mebership). This seems to me just to beplaying the systemSlatersteven (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Nickhh
Agree with the above two comments, as well as with the many others who have commented in two separate threads on Elonka's talk page. It is pretty hard to argue that the BNP page (which I have never edited btw) is a "Troubles-related" article, and the dispute in question there is most certainly not. Nor is it related to the broader question of "British nationalism in relation to Ireland". If this is how wide the net is going to be drawn, pretty much every article on Wikipedia can probably be brought under an existing ArbCom decision. In this case for example, there's a stronger argument for having the Conservative Party and Glasgow Rangers Football Club subjected to the Troubles regime, since the connections there are much stronger than for the BNP. Sure you have to have flexibility, and someone arguing for example that the Easter Rising or the Border Campaign, or even some parts of the Oliver Cromwell article, are not connected to The Troubles, is indeed probably Wikilawyering - but that's a very different situation.
On the wider point, I would also express concern that an admin has suddenly descended on the page to make a unilateral declaration of this sort and to start imposing special restrictions on the article, and potentially the editors there, without any sort of consensus from ArbCom or the wider community for them to start doing that. Furthermore, repeated observations to them from multiple editors that they might have made an error of fact are repeatedly stonewalled or even ignored with a repeated pro-forma response, eg here. If there are problems on that article - which there are fairly likely to be, after all - address them of course, possibly even with severe action, but don't do it under a regime designed explicitly for something else altogether.
The admin in question also appears to be deploying the argument that the terms of the Troubles ruling say "when in doubt, assume [the article] is related". Well, as has been pointed out, there isn't much doubt that the BNP is not a related article. I and others have provided examples of cases where there might be a genuine debate, and hence doubt, about the relevance of an article or parts of one, where one could perhaps invoke that principle and err on the side of inclusion. Ultimately though these decisions are actually fairly simple - eg the Bill Clinton page is not "Troubles-related", but that small part of the page which discusses his involvement in Northern Ireland is. To argue that because one editor/admin has asserted that the entire BNP page is related, the doubt as to whether it is or isn't therefore does now exist and consequently they are right to apply the template, is a rather classic example of self-serving sophistry, to be blunt. Any claims as well that their action has helped sort out problems on the article are also somewhat irrelevant as i) it is simply the wrong template to apply, regardless; and ii) it is simply an assertion of causality, without evidence. I think we need clarification of the issue in question, as well as some sort of comment on whether this sort of unilateral action, based on a pretty fundamental misjudgement and/or an overzealous interpretation of prior rulings, is appropriate in future. --Nickhh (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Response to MastCell
Up to a point - but I think this is sufficiently different, in that people here are asking for clarification of the current decision as it stands, and whether Elonka's unilateral and highly contentious action was appropriate, and whether it should stand (in my opinion, it should not and it should be struck immediately - this really is about whether ArbCom decisions mean what they say, or whether individual editors can come along and appropriate them seemingly for their own enforcement purposes, against reason and consensus. I don't see that it's a tough decision). Whether her proposed amendment to the Troubles decision - which includes as one part of it a request to extend the scope of the topic area - is subsequently accepted at some point, and therefore whether Elonka might effectively be granted retrospective approval for her action, is another matter. --Nickhh (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Elonka
My attention was drawn to the British National Party article because I'd been monitoring some other Troubles-related articles, and noticed that some of the editors had overflowed the dispute to the BNP article. I'll freely admit that I'm not intimately familiar with the nuances of the content dispute (which is probably as it should be, since I'm supposed to be uninvolved). I did scan the BNP article though, and saw that it included clear references to Ireland. That, combined with the facts that the article was the location of established editors repeatedly reverting each other,[16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] and that some of those editors were known edit-warriors from the Troubles topic area, suggested that it would be reasonable to try and stabilize the article by reminding everyone that it was within the scope of the Troubles case restrictions. That scope was defined by community consensus in October 2008, as "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland . . . When in doubt, assume it is related."[25] The last sentence, "When in doubt, assume it is related," was the clincher for me. It's also worth pointing out that since I placed the tag on November 16,[26] the edit-warring has pretty much ceased, and the editors are instead continuing with more constructive editing. I have engaged several of the parties in discussion about what the restrictions mean,[27][28] and how they can learn to edit in a more collaborative manner.[29][30][31][32][33][34][35] Other than talkpage discussion and a couple cautions though,[36][37] I have not had to implement any blocks or bans in relation to that article. I've also informed the parties that if the article remains stable (meaning no edit-wars among established editors) for a period of time (30 days?), I believe it would be reasonable to remove the tag entirely.[38] As for what ArbCom should do here, it would be helpful either to clearly decline this clarification as unneeded, or simply confirm that it is reasonable for an administrator to have applied the {{Troubles restriction}} template to the BNP article, as it seems to be within the case's scope. --Elonka 19:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Verbal
Elonka's statement is faulty, this is undoubtedly an article unrelated to "the troubles". The dispute at this article was minor and in no way invoved the troubles, and once again Elonka's actions have increased the heat and drawn drama where there was none before. This could have been dealt with by an admin quite easily without wikilawyering an unrelated arbcom probation to give absolute power and carte blanch to avoid oversight by other admins. This is disproportionate and disruptive, and against the spirt and intention, and in my view the letter, of the troubles case. Nothing more than usual admin tools and community norms were required. I fear by Elonka's actions "the troubles" may spread to other articles. Verbal chat 19:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by RTG
The BNP topic is not "British Nationalism in relation to Ireland". Perhaps a special clause could be added for such articles but as linking Irish Nationalism to British Nationalism could be misleading in many critical ideological ways, declaring such articles to be "Troubles related" or even Nationalist in relation to Irish Nationalism without a direct connection is bound to produce dissaproval. The list of diffs shown by Elonika appears to be an edit war started [39] and largely continued by me [40]. The issue, if it is of any consequence here, is wether to rely upon the disparity between third party sources and the primary source rather than providing information about the disparity, with barely even speculative relation to Ireland let alone The Troubles. Apologies... perhaps there is a model whereby these sanctions could be introduced to "Troubled Article"s without labelling them with any particular politic or ArbCom case?
Self-explanitory note: for any unassuming of the fact that political partys may be in no way connected to The Troubles in the manner that Monster Raving Looney Party is not, for instance.
As suggested by User:Nickhh above, there is much more direct scope for insertion of British political parties which have been in government during the Troubles period. Can't think of anything else. ~ R.T.G 23:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
View of uninvolved editor: Sarah777
As someone who has pointed out the considerable problems with Elonka's (and other) Admins proposals for a "troubles-creep" policy, I nonetheless see this as a clear example of a "troubles-related" article. The BNP is a racist virulently anti-Irish Party and were active during the period of the troubles. Their inclusion is much more appropriate than Irish articles about events that occurred dozens or even hundreds of years before the troubles. The sudden outcry by editors (who in many cases are themselves troubles-warriors) is risible. Just because Elonka, uninformed though she admits she is, can see the obvious fact that 'articles related to the British-Irish' dispute does not mean only Irish articles. And yes, of course this potentially extends to articles on US political parties as well - which is why I oppose Elonka's extensification proposal. But in the context of her and other Admins proposals "BNP" is definitely a legitimate target for the Arbcom scatter-gun. Sarah777 (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Logistical comment by MastCell
Please combine this with Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_The_Troubles, as essentially the same issues are now under discussion in 2 different places, with quite a bit of repetition. MastCell Talk 00:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Response to Vassyana
Hi, not sure I quite understand the point being made here. Are you agreeing there was no need to invoke the ArbCom Troubles decision in dealing with any problems on the BNP page? Or are you saying that because it now has been, but by an individual admin rather than by ArbCom, any review should be at AN/ANI or using some form of DR rather than here? We tried reasoning with Elonka on her talkpage but were brushed off. We tried going to ANI and were told to ask for formal clarification here, which is what has been done, but no one seems willing to give it. A mixture of one editor/admin's astonishing stubborness and refusal to admit a mistake, combined with the usual bureaucratic "oh no mate, you want Dept 4B, other building", seem to be conspiring to make this all rather complicated when it's all rather simple really. Correcting a rather obvious mistake really shouldn't take this much time and effort. It is all quite surreal
- Clarification of the Troubles decision - does it cover the BNP page, as 99% of involved and uninvolved editors have said it doesn't?
- Clarification re Elonka's action - should she have just unilaterally imposed the tag and associated restrictions on the page?
Thanks, --Nickhh (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
And, further to this - the issue has already been discussed at length on Elonka's talk page, and on the BNP article page. Consensus from a mix of involved and uninvolved editors is about 15-2 that the page is not a Troubles-related article, but Elonka for some reason is standing her ground. One editor also went to ANI, and they were told to come here, which another editor then did. I'm not sure why we would go to AE - the point is not that we need enforcement of a decision, but rather "unenforcement", or, simply a clarification that the page is not related, confirming the rather clear decision that the "community" has already come to. If we have to go to yet another venue, spend hours collecting diffs and post all the same arguments for the fifth time, well fine. On the other hand, either ArbCom simply clarifying - on the Arbitration clarification page, after all - "no, that page has nothing to do with our decision on the Troubles" or Elonka having the good grace to admit an error and hit a single button to reverse a totally bizarre decision, would seem to be a much more obvious route to sorting this rather silly problem out. Cheers. --Nickhh (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Response to clarification provided
Please could the provided clarification to this problem be clarified.
Does an Admin have the right to label any article Troubles related because several editors from the troubles are involved at the article?
If an article mentions a sentence or two about a policy on Ireland and there is an edit war over something totally unreleated, can the fact there is one sentence on Ireland be used to justify placing that article under troubles related restrictions?
Yes or no to these two questions would be most helpful, its a pretty simple question that has been very well avoided in the extensive response below. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Response by RTG to clarification provided
The clarification does not actually clarify the matter of the BNP article which is certainly the purpose of this request. Although not in the title, it does specifically say British National Party under the request. Can you clarify using the name "BNP article" or "British National Party article"? Cosensus seems to suggest, if I may, that BNP relation to The Troubles is only abstract and that even though the BNP have sought some public support on one occasion from a Troubles-related group, in issues not concerning The Troubles, support (if any) garnered appears to have little notability. The issue of white people being overrun isn't really valid in Ireland north or south where all the slaves were white, and even largely protestant in northern areas, anyway. We are too busy fighting amongst ourselves to be fighting the blacks over in England. ! ~ R.T.G 16:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved Ncmvocalist
In response to Nate's question (and a number of others doubts), you resolve it at community level by first discussing it with the admin who imposed the action. Should that not work out, you use dispute resolution as necessary (such as RfC'ing the matter, which is most ideal in this case) or you make a community discussion at the appropriate admin noticeboard. That would usually be AE (though AN may also work). Of course, whichever venue or step in DR you choose, it would be a good idea to send neutral notices to notable venues (like AN/ANI/AE - i.e. not canvassing or specific users) so that you guys maximise the possibility of more uninvolved input being given. Only if there is difficulty interpreting or coming to a community consensus on the issue during these steps, should you escalate to ArbCom after which they can intervene. That is what is meant by Vassyana's comment: "only intervene when it is clear that the available options have exhausted and/or a dispute cannot be resolved at the community level". ArbCom are unlikely to (and are practically bound not to) provide any confirmation, reversal, or opinion in the absence of those community steps being proactively taken (and exhausted) in good faith. Some of the steps I've mentioned must've been missed, or I would've at least been aware of what venue was chosen - maximising the possibility of more uninvolved input being given is a must here. I hope that helps. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Clerk notes
Arbitrator views and discussion
- tl:dr version: My initial thoughts are that this should be resolved at the community level. Hash it out there, without the involved editors overwhelming the discussion. I do not see why this cannot be reviewed normally like other disputes about administrator actions. Vassyana (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- Full rationale: The Arbitration Committee has generally recognized community-based clarifications, implementations, and expansions of area-targeted remedies and sanctions. The results of arbitration cases do not preclude additional community imposed warnings, conditions, or sanctions on any individual area or editor. The additional clarifications and conditions related to the Troubles case are noted in the arbitration enforcement log. Similarly, the presence of an ongoing arbitration case or arbitration remedies does not impede or prohibit administrators from acting normally using existing policies, norms, tools, and processes. Normal administrative actions and actions otherwise taken under the scope of community level decisions should be resolved normally at the community level. The Arbitration Committee should only intervene when it is clear that the available options have exhausted and/or a dispute cannot be resolved at the community level. If any action taken under community conditions is disputed, the regular avenues for resolving disputed administrator actions should be utilized. That means such disputes should use normal dispute resolution options and seek community input, as recommended in the administrator policy. Vassyana (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
- I will not intervene as an arbitrator nor encourage the Committee to intervene on a community imposed or expanded sanction unless it is clear the question cannot be resolved by the community. Even if it were purely a matter of an arbitration remedy, which it is distinctly not in this instance, things should still be resolved at the community level whenever possible. Some confrontational discussion and a derailed ANI thread does not comprise much of an attempt to resolve this at the community level. If people are saying "hands off this has to go to ArbCom", or any analogue thereof, they are mistaken. I should also note that if attempts at community discussion are derailed, overwhelmed, or otherwise disrupted by involved parties that when this returns to our doorstep, I will be looking at least as much at that as the administrator actions. Vassyana (talk) 11:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- The BNP article no more falls under the scope of "The Troubles" case than our articles on mainstream British political parties, especially as, as far as I know, the BNP don't even field candidates in Northern Ireland. However, the BNP article clearly has severe behavioural issues and I can sympathise with an administrator thinking that editing restrictions would be helpful in resolving them. Best may be to sound the community on article probation, either at WP:AN/I or via an RfC. I do not think this requires a full case of its own though an ArbCom motion/injunction, with similar terms to Troubles restriction, coming into more or less immediate effect might be another route. Roger Davies talk 16:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- I can appreciate that the name "The Troubles" can cause confusion, however the case is as much to do with the editors involved as it is to do with the topics involved. Prior to Elonka noticing this, Off2riorob had been suggesting that the problem was related to the involvement of editors from The Troubles, and GoodDay said that he was considering asking for full page protection. As a result, I don't see a problem with an admin bring British National Party under this case for a short time. Also, as Sarah777 points out, BNP is a controversial political party, and one that is attempting a face lift on a few fronts, and there were recent protests in Northern Ireland.[41] If the problematic editing continues for more than a month, a longer term solution is needed and the community should decide whether whether The Troubles editing restrictions are helpful, or seek other solution. user:Nickhh, I think you should steer clear of both that article and this issue for a while - your involvement thus far has been to stir without bringing any positive contributions to the article or the discussion. John Vandenberg (chat) 16:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC) (edit conflicting with Roger)
- I generally agree with all three preceding comments. Hopefully this dispute can be worked out on that basis without requiring further arbitration proceedings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Concur with above as well. Wizardman 06:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Agree largely with Roger Davies above, and Mathsci in the amendment discussion. The BNP does not have much if anything to do with Irish nationalism. I disagree with the practice of slapping a "Troubles" tag on an article if a well-recognised group turn up at an unrelated article to argue over "Troubles" related material. That is allowing the dispute to spread, and disrupts editing of the article on other matters (there is much more to the BNP that the article editors should be talking about, not this). The correct response, in my view, is to topic ban (from the new article in question) the editors who spread a dispute to that article, or to ban said editors from interacting with each other. This may, of course, require discretionary sanctions or requests for ArbCom action, rather than using existing sanctions, but that is for the editors and admins helping out in this area to decide. Carcharoth (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Request to amend prior case: Tang Dynasty (December 2009)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Tenmei (talk) at 00:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- See also Barking up the wrong tree.--Tenmei (talk) 06:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:Order of Culture#Restatement
- Tenmei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Teeninvestor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Kraftlos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- PericlesofAthens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Arilang1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that the "involved parties" are aware of this request
Amend this case by annulment
Statement by Tenmei
- 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.
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
- 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)
- 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.,
- <font=dark blue>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."
- <font=dark blue>Summarizing "more or less the entire dispute"
- 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."
- "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.
- 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.
- This annulment can be achieved in the same manner as proposed by John Vandenberg in review of The Troubles. --Tenmei (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Tenmei's reply to Bueller 007
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)
Tenmei's reply to Nick-D
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)
Tenmei's reply to Teeninvestor
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)
Tenmei's reply to Caspian blue
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:
- A. 14:48, 30 July 2009 diff Chōji (Undid revision 305060223 by 166.137.134.136 repeated vandalism -- stop)
- B. 14:49, 30 July 2009 diff East Sea (Undid revision 305060121 by 166.137.134.136 repeated vandalism -- stop)
- C. 14:50, 30 July 2009 diff Kujō Yoritsugu (Undid revision 305060035 by 1166.137.134.136 repeated vandalism -- stop)
- D. 14:52, 30 July 2009 diff Gyeongju (Undid revision 305059936 by 166.137.134.136 repeated vandalism -- stop)
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)
- 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 fiveinstances 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?
- Caspian blue selects
- 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)
- In the context of this house of cards, my focus is forward-looking.
- 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.
- By editing
- 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.
- In the section above, I've stricken arguably meaningful responses in order emphasize one fulcrum sentence in Caspian blue's statement:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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)
Comment: Six month review
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 contextas explained at Wikipedia:Silence and consensus -- Qui tacet consentire videtur. In the alternative,why washow 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?
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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?
|
|---|
|
¶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
|
|---|
|
¶2-3(c). Copy of e-message, John Vandenberg to Tenmei (18 Nov).
The unstatedAxiomatic 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 unacknowledgedArbCom responsesto my inquirieswhich 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
|
|---|
You can not ask for relief while you are violating the ArbCom decision.
|
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)
- 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)- 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)
- 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."
- Comment: re Vandenberg's draft summary
- 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)
- Comment: re Carcharoth's endoresement of Review summary
- 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)
- Comment: re Coren's endorsement of Review summary
- 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:
- Comment re Riskers endorsement of Six month review & Enforcement of mentorship
- "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.
- "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.
- 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)
Statement by Bueller 007
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)
Statement by Nick-D
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)
Statement by Teeninvestor
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)
Statement by Caspian blue
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[43][44][45][46][47] 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)
- 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.[48]. 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.[49] Tenmei, think about why your "barking dog" attacks were deleted and the edit summary that tells you that you're breaking your ArbCom ban.[50] 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",[51] and you still do the same inappropriate behaviors as well. You also broke your ban to his talk page.[52]. 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.[53][54][55][56][57]-Caspian blue 02:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Statement by Penwhale
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)
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)
Amendment 2
- Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
- Details of desired modification
Statement by your username (2)
{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)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
Further discussion
- 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
Clerk notes
- This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- Make formal recusal due to my original position as commentator in the original case. (Despite the fact that I've not been active much lately...) - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 08:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Arbitrator views and discussion
- 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)
Tang Dynasty motions
Six month review
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
-
- This is a fair summary. Carcharoth (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Wizardman 19:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- — Coren (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Roger Davies talk 18:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Vassyana (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Risker (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose
-
- Abstain
-
- Recuse
- Discussion
- I think this accurately sums up the last six months. I'll not support it until Tenmei and other committee members have had time to comment. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Tenmei mentor
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
-
- 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)
- Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Wizardman 19:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- — Coren (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Roger Davies talk 18:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Vassyana (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Risker (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose
-
- Abstain
-
- Recuse
- Discussion
Mentor availability
The mentor must be publicly identified, and willing to make themselves available for other editors to contact them publicly or privately.
- Support
-
- Issues need to be taken directly to the mentors. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Wizardman 19:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- That is, in fact, one of the primary objectives of having a mentor. — Coren (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Roger Davies talk 18:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Vassyana (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Risker (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose
-
- Abstain
-
- Recuse
- Discussion
Editors who come into conflict
Editors who come into conflict with Tenmei are advised to contact the mentor(s) either publicly or via email.
- Support
-
- Weakly; this goes without saying. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- Wizardman 19:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- — Coren (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Roger Davies talk 18:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Vassyana (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Risker (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose
-
- Abstain
-
- Recuse
- Discussion
Tenmei restriction reset
The restrictions in remedy 1.1 are reset, to commence once the mentor arrangement is approved by the Arbitration Committee.
- Support
-
- Necessary in order for the mentoring to have a chance. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Carcharoth (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Wizardman 19:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- — Coren (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Roger Davies talk 18:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Vassyana (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Risker (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose
-
- Abstain
-
- Recuse
- Discussion
Enforcement of mentorship
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
-
- John Vandenberg (chat) 02:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Carcharoth (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- As Wizardman says, this may be suboptimal; but it's necessary. — Coren (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Weakly support; still unsure but it's something. Wizardman 19:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)- Per Wizardman. Roger Davies talk 18:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Time limits. Vassyana (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Recuse
- Discussion
- This motion is intended to also cater for the possibility that a mentor, if one is found now, could conclude the mentoring arrangement, in which case it is necessary for Tenmei to seek another mentor. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Clerk notes
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)