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 35 | ← | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 |
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 20:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
ArbCom's
Strategic default?
|
---|
|
ArbCom's
Strategic default?
|
---|
|
In case these words are otherwise overlooked, I echo what Doc James writes here by asking what more is wanted?
Continued delay does not ameliorate any of the problems which ArbCom tacitly agreed to help resolve.
Continued inaction does not mitigate the consequences of the Gordian Knot which this forum wrongly fostered.
The arc of this case serves only to illustrate the relevance of Gresham's law in our Wikipedia community. -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
The original ArbCom participants in Tang Dynasty affirmed this principle:
Nick-D reminded ArbCom here that I was the one who inititiated this case. In compliance with what I understood to be ArbCom's instructions, I initiated this thread. These actions demonstrate my express purpose -- addressing perceived communication problems by seeking assistance. This deserves due respect.
However, ArbCom's failures of communication impede both collaboration and resolution. We confront serious problems. Thus far, ArbCom itself has not conformed with this adduced principle. Working together, we can move beyond the serial failures of the past year.-- Tenmei ( talk) 18:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom's
Strategic default?
|
---|
|
What distinguishes this thread from " Strategic default"? If this is not " Strategic default", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.
ArbCom's
Strategic default?
|
---|
|
What distinguishes this thread from " Strategic default"? If this is not " Strategic default", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.
ArbCom's
Strategic default?
|
---|
How this will work has been made explicit -- expressly provided for by ArbCom or created in order to facilitate the implied Tang Dynasty objectives. I cast a wide net as part of an outside-the-box search for a cohort of co-mentors. My best interests are fulfilled only if their investments of time and thought are made easy and effective.
|
What distinguishes this thread from " Strategic default"? If this is not " Strategic default", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.
Moving the goalposts
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
What respects volunteers? This confirmation process can be moved forward by repeating a fundamental axiom: "My best interests are fulfilled only if these volunteers' investments of time and thought are made easy and effective." Risker's questions are not easy; and whatever time volunteers might invest in answering would likely produce little more than ineffective guesswork. In part, mentorship was proposed by ArbCom as a remedy because, "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". In contrast, the wide-ranging search for volunteers ensured that a broad range of tools are available. In part, the group-structure was necessitated by the problems which flow from the ArbCom neologism; and this explains why my Mentorship Committee is comprised of (a) "mentors", as described at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Involuntary mentorship; and (b) "mentors", as conventionally understood and described at Mentorship. No one has volunteered to investigate the conceptual flaws in ArbCom's terminology nor in devising flexible mentoring group structures; rather, each has expressed a willingness to invest a limited amount of time in helping me improve how I participate in our encyclopedia-building project. I construe my responsibilities to "keep my eye on the ball" -- which means paying attention to a changing focal point which encompasses each person’s expectation of what the other expects him to expect to be expected to do. What is the main thing? At User talk:FloNight#Tenmei's mentor, the main objective was clarified: "... a mentor is like a coach mostly." In this explicit context, words from the userpage of Kraftlos offer a succinct response to Risker's three questions and any corollaries:
In June 2009, FloNight restated ArbCom's objectives:
Now is the time to let these volunteer mentors get to work. Reinventing the wheel. As FloNight explained in June 2009, "... if mentors see a new problem they can make it clear to him that they will tell us so that we can promptly handle it. This approach usually works best." As succinctly expressed by SMcCandlish here, " ...this is an encyclopedia-bulding project, not an experiment in virtual governance ...."
|
What distinguishes this thread from " moving the goalposts"? If this is not " moving the goalposts", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.
Raising the bar
|
---|
The responses to Steve Smith + Coren + Roger Davies + Risker are comprehensive and clear. Carcharoth's words are like raising the bar, which here takes the form of " feature creep" as objectives are redefined. According to the Wikipedia article about the phrase " moving the goalpost":
At best, Carcharoth's reasoning illustrates a perfect solution fallacy which is inapposite in this unique case. In a context ArbCom has created, it is seemly to adopt the words of DGG as my own.
Carcharoth's diff discourages me. This is truly harmful when it is perceived as discouraging by others. -- Tenmei ( talk) 18:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
|
What distinguishes this thread from " raising the bar"? If this is not " raising the bar", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.
Extending a finish line
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
What distinguishes this thread from " extending a finish line"? If this is not " extending a finish line", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.
Changing the terms
|
---|
The concerns and reservations raised in this thread are addressed in different ways by each of the mentors. For today, your questions become a kind of red herring except for this:
Each member of the Arbitration Committee should to construe Robofish's words as a justifiable criticism of logical errors in ArbCom-approved mentorship schema. I was able to pursuaede Robofish to step forward; and this modest achievement was undermined. ArbCom snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by effectively persuading Robofish to withdraw.
|
What distinguishes this thread from " Changing the terms"? If this is not " Changing the terms", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.
Your comment here in Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 is relevant in this Tang Dynasty thread: You explained that "[i]n general I dislike giving good-faith requests the runaround."
As it turned out, this Kafkaesque Tang Dynasty ordeal has been naught but a runaround.
As you know, Tang Dynasty began over a year ago when I proposed a very narrowly-defined case. As an appropriate context for this thread, that long-ago beginng remains modest, timely and relevant.
Let me refresh your memory of what I presented as context for narrow questions about how to deflect straw man arguments by re-asserting core policies and the importance of academic credibility in our Wikipedia project. I explained here:
This ArbCom process has produced many questions, but these are the ones with which I began. What ensued was unhelpful. You may recall that you summarized this Gordian Knot as a "welter of words" here.
Any assertion or response I tried to present was overwhelmed. What evolved in the past year has taken on a life of its own. Whether viewed from the starting point over a year ago, or construed in the terms of this one thread, this has been a runaround.
Why?
What distinguishes this thread from a " runaround" If this is not a " runaround", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.
Shell Kinney -- Your comment here in Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 is relevant in this Tang Dynasty thread: You explained that "You're back on the right path - give it some time before immersing yourself in a difficult environment again."
In this Tang Dynasty case, please let me refresh your memory of what I presented as context for narrow questions about how to deflect straw man arguments by re-asserting core policies and the importance of academic credibility in our Wikipedia project. I explained here:
Whether viewed from the starting point over a year ago, or construed in the terms of this one thread, I have undoubtedly satisfied whatever anyone might mean by "'give it some time' before immersing yourself in a difficult environment again." Arguably, the effort to locate mentors and their comments in this thread was progress along "the right path" and yet, there is no joy in Mudville.
Why?
What distinguishes this thread from "the right path?" If this is not a "the right path", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.
As requested by Tenmei I will provide some oversight over his editing. I hope that this will allow everyone to get back to what we are here for, writing an encyclopedia. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC) (jmh649)
I as well have volunteered to provide some oversight. Arbcom said that he is topic banned, does that mean he can contribute to those areas while under oversight, or does it simply mean he needs to be observed in all his edits? -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 04:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm willing to help Tenmei learn to be concise when posting comments. Based on my observations, he has a tendency to be excessively wordy in his posts, which in turn lends itself to people having a tl;dr reaction to his posts. As long as there are several people on this "mentorship committee", I'm willing to help out. I have a lot of other things I do here, and I'd like this to have only a small impact on that. I think Tenmei can learn and improve (and he has in many ways), so hopefully this mentorship will be deemed unnecessary at some future point. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm continuing to provide Tenmei with advice by email as I had offered here. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 17:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Despite some prior discussion with Tenmei about being a mentor, I chose not to be in this group because i thought the process more complicated than necessary, and there were already quite enough other people. But I can't see any objections if Tenmai wants to try it, since there are willing mentors of high editing quality and proven responsibility. DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I am willing to assisst Tenmei in oversighting his edits. Leujohn ( talk, stalk me?) 13:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I was told by Amory that Risker had posed some questions here and that I was supposed to come answer them. I'm assuming these are the questions:
It has been said that Wikipedia too easily devolves into a MMORPG. These arbitration actions seem to cross the line more easily than other Wikipedia activities. Risker's questions imply that the mentorship group needs fixed rules for interactions with marauding barbarians and some kind of definite written constitution in order to guide our actions so that our swords are not cutting one another rather than the orcs around us. Nihonjoe is right on the money. We'll work like reasonably intelligent adult human beings and resolve the differences in the true Wikipedia manner--by working toward consensus. (As a note, I don't know where Risker's questions are--he didn't bother to put them in a separate subsection here so that I don't waste my time trying to hack through the jungle. I just used Nihonjoe's summary of them above.)
Here is my take on the situation so far.
When I was first approached by Tenmei to be a volunteer mentor, I made it clear what I thought his problem with communication was. I severely critiqued several of his posts, but while he made them shorter, he still continued to wander off into meaningless metaphor, cut an excessively fine point to the details of his comments, and invent meaningless techno-babble to describe the Arbitration process and his frustrations with aspects of it. Unfortunately, I think it is the style of writing and communication which he learned as a young man and it is so ingrained in him that he is unable to recognize it, let alone change it. It means that his ability to communicate effectively in a discussion and content disagreement on Wikipedia, where the majority of editors do not share the ground from which he draws his metaphors, is severely limited. The techno-babble he invents and insists on using, despite my efforts to tell him to stop using it, means that he actually clouds the issue he is discussing more than he enlightens it. The longer he writes using unknown metaphors and invented techno-babble, the more meaningless his comments become. I hate to be so harsh, but after reading his first email, I stopped reading past the first two sentences of subsequent emails. He fails to understand that other Wikipedia editors will do exactly the same thing in any content dispute. While his expertise would be a great contribution to Wikipedia, he is unable to communicate it to the typical Wikipedia editor. Imagine going into battle with two weapons. One weapon will kill one enemy at a time, but has a single button that says, "Push to fire". The other weapon will kill all enemies at once, but has a 1,000-page instruction manual that details the history of the weapon's development, the academic qualifications of its makers, the theory behind its operation, and the instruction "Push the red button to fire" buried on page 739 in the middle of the page. Unfortunately, Tenmei wrote the latter instruction and I'm not certain that the writer who produced the 1,000-page instruction manual is capable of creating a sticker on the side of the weapon that says "Push to fire". To him, it's just not elegant or subtle or finely-honed enough; it carries none of the warnings or history or comparisons to classical warfare that decorate the verbiage of the manual. ( Taivo ( talk) 22:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC))
I'll keep this brief. When I agreed to be a mentor, I assumed it would be a fairly simple task, a matter of overseeing Tenmei's edits, giving him occasional advice, and helping him to resolve disputes (or, ideally, avoid getting into them in the first place). It looks now that it would be something more complex and formal, involving discussing things with the other mentors and agreeing with them before deciding whether any particular action can receive our approval. Basically, it sounds like it's getting too bureaucratic to me, and as I don't have as much time to spend on Wikipedia as I used to anyway, I think I have to drop out. Sorry Tenmei - I hope you're able to work something out here and reach a universally acceptable solution that will allow you to return to editing, but I don't think I'm able to be part of it. Robofish ( talk) 00:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Per request, I've taken the time to review the posed questions and provide my answers, as well as my general understanding of the situation. First of all, I believe that Tenmei has the basics of becoming a good Wikipedia editor. However, one skill in which Tenmei needs assistance is in collaboration with others. Bombarding users with philosophical metaphors is not very helpful. I'm eager to assist because what I see in Tenmei is something I see in myself ... that is, I find myself in real life trying to provide all the possible information I can, instead of just what the requester asked for. I think, in time, we'll both learn something during this process, and that appeals to me.
Now, as to the questions posed by Risker:
(a) how you will address differences amongst yourselves (a situation we have encountered in other mentoring situations)?
(b) what range of actions you are willing to undertake as individuals and as a group?
(c) how the "group" will work when Tenmei is also receiving private advice from individuals not specifically included in the group of mentors.
I think that the goal here is a sound one ... provide Tenmei with guidance as to how to better collaborate with other editors on the project, and I'm prepared to assist in any way I can.
-- McDoobAU93 ( talk) 00:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with the others who have commented here. This is simply us checking in on Tenmei and trying to keep him going in a positive direction. I know you guys were expecting some sort of formal process here, but to me that seems counterproductive. I imagine any of us can comment on his editing habits, and if needed we can ask the other mentors for opinions. This isn't rocket science. I think Tenmei's editing has been held up for too long, the only way he is going to learn is through practice. So what is this:
How does that sound? -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 04:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Note that John Carter ( contribs) has not edited since December 24. I don't think there's any point in waiting for a reply from him at this point in time before proceeding. The others have all replied. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 16:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for not paying attention tot his discussion lately. I was off wiki the last week or so.
Please remember that I am not the only mentor, so I am only speaking for myself. Leujohn ( talk, stalk me?) 10:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the recommendations above are reasonable. Details can be determined if events occur. I think it is time to get Tenmei back to editing the main space. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Tenmei is reminded of the remedies from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty that apply to him. Specifically:
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 — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk at 21:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Piotrus used to perform a number of uncontroversial housekeeping tasks for WikiProject Poland that did not involve content editing of articles related to Poland. For example, he monitored newly-created Poland-related articles and, where appropriate, added applicable clean-up tags (including nominating them for deletion when necessary), nominated them for DYK, and invited their creators to the WikiProject. (A fairly complete list of his former responsibilities can be found here.)
When Piotrus was blocked, User:Jniech volunteered to take on some of those responsibilities. Jniech made a good faith effort, but for a variety of reasons Jniech has not been able to keep up with the necessary tasks. Both Jniech and I have asked for assistance, but none of the other WikiProject Poland members have volunteered to step in. Consequently, these tasks have not been performed for several months.
I hereby request an amendment to Piotrus's topic ban in order that he may once again perform these housekeeping tasks and post messages to WikiProject Poland to inform other editors about such tasks. Piotrus would be strictly prohibited from editing the content of any Poland-related articles except for the types of uncontroversial maintenance edits mentioned above.
In the alternative, I request an amendment to Piotrus's topic ban in order that he may inform me of any new Poland-related articles that, in his opinion, should be tagged for clean-up (including deletion), or of any other WikiProject-related tasks.
To the best of my knowledge, all that Malik Shabazz says above is true. Piotrus has played an essential role in the production and maintenance of articles pertaining to Poland and Poland's broader geographic and historic milieu. Had Piotrus never written an article himself — and he has doubtless been one of the most productive editors on these and other subjects — his role in the cleaning-up of existing articles would still have made him one of the most productive editors on the English Wikipedia. Malik Shabazz's proposal, if adopted, will strengthen the project in a very substantial and noticeable way. Nihil novi ( talk) 06:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
As stated above, User:Piotrus was of great help for WikiProject Poland. It would be extremely beneficial for the project if he would be able to perform easy non-controversial tasks for the project. His cleanup abilities are needed. - Darwinek ( talk) 19:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
If an editor feels some article needs an additional tag, banner, cat etc pp, WP:SOFIXIT applies.
Malik Shabazz based this request on his co-project member Jniech's mid-February request. Angus McLellan promptly offered advise on how to properly deal with the issues Jniech was uncertain about, while MS proposed to go to this board, and prepared this request in his user space afterwards. MS's assumtion that "A fairly complete list of his [Piotrus'] former responsibilities can be found here" is false. As any editor, Piotrus does not have any responsibilities here, except for playing by the (few) rules. The list MS linked are not Piotrus' responsibilities, but a list of optional, volunteer maintenance tasks that may be performed by anyone. MS's assumption that "these tasks have not been performed for several months" remains unproven, and it is neither shown that there is anything that really needs to be done and is not done. Skäpperöd ( talk) 08:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
As it has been said above, Piotrus took significant role to create and improve hundreds of Poland and European related articles. Many of them became articles with the highest Wikipedia standards what can be seen by numerous of DYKs, Featured, A-Class and Good articles. I totally agree with Malik Shabazz and I believe (I know) Piotrus' work on WP:Poland will be beneficial for Wikipedia. Visor ( talk) 19:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Poland has a number of members but it is the number willing to do the work that is important. A few of us tried to cover for Piotrus. It is our failure that resulted in this request as without Piotrus help the backlog of outstanding tasks is only going to increase.
Further in my mind adding a template or recommending an article for DYK is not really breaking Piotrus ban on editing article on central and eastern European topics.
Members of Wikipedia can help with many issues but there is the issue of maintaining consistency. Only someone with years of knowledge on Polish related articles can help with this.
It only hurts Wikipedia by not considering this request. Piotrus appears to have broken the rules and some form of punishment was warranted. Stopping Piotrus adding content and discussing articles on central and eastern European issues maybe fair but taking part in “uncontroversial housekeeping tasks” seems unnecessary. In olden days, prisons were for punishment. In these more enlighten days rehabilitation is the goal. Why not consider this? If Piotrus breaks the rules then increase the length of ban but stopping him doing house keeping others can’t be bothered doing seems wrong.
Those who doubt that there is a need only has to monitor the WikiProject Poland page to see increasing numbers of Poland-related articles by quality and importance which are not assessed and that is including those we are failing to tag Jniech ( talk) 09:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC).
Given the long history of off-wiki games, disruptive coordination to circumvent Wikipedia policies, tag-teaming, stealth canvassing etc. any attempt to ease any sanctions should begin with a full acknowledgement of guilt by the sanctioned party. And by full acknowledgement I mean not "non-apology apologies" that we did have before, not wikilawering or beating around the bushes, but straightforward admition by the sanctioned party that it understands why it was sanctioned, and admits that its actions such as 'tag team' edit-warring, abuse of dispute resolution processes, proxying for blocked user and encouraging and advising other Wikipedia editors to circumvent Wikipedia policies were disruptive, harmed Wikipedia’s integrity and will never be repeated again. Without such statement any motion to ease these sanctions should not even be considered.
Finally, none of those “tasks” listed above are vital to the project and easily can be carried out by other members of the project. If Piotrus has too much free time, he can work in dozen other WP projects. Saying that, I perfectly understand that we will see countless other typical “amendments”, “calcifications” and “requests“ in the near future. M.K. ( talk) 06:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I can only confirm that Piotrus housekeeping tasks related Poland-related articles are missed now. Besides, Piotrus used to do an outstanding job indirectly motivating other editors to improve the quality of the project articles, and this is missed too. It seems that the proposed amendment can only do good and I can see no harm in it. -- Lysy talk 19:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Time flies. The month of April is already getting close to an end. Piotrus is going to return to full time editing in several months, regardless of any amendments to EEML. I ask. Why not allow him to return to his area of expertise one step at a time, and, take on noncontroversial tasks in the process of recovery. The Project Poland has been virtually dormant since the New Years, with only rudimentary maintenance and peripheral activities taking place. Poland–related DYKs have all but vanished from the front page of Wikipedia since last year. Naturally, Piotrus is not going to make up for all the loses endured by the Project, but his own prior devotion to this portal would be a good place to gradually start rebuilding. -- Poeticbent talk 20:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
well, i can`t write a lot about the eeml-stuff because i haven`t followed the progress in detail and i`m sure that the arbcom was as carefully as always. i want to provide an other point: Piotrus is an experienced university outreach user - especially as main contributor of WP:SUP, where he runs his own sociology project every term - and expanded the perspectives of this part of the wikipedia. he is trusted there as well as on the real life aspects of this matter and so i would be pleased if it would be possible to give him the chance to run a SUP-project of his own again, best regards -- Jan eissfeldt ( talk) 20:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I did not want to comment earlier as I wanted to avoid influencing the discussion. I feel that the experienced members of the WikiProject Poland who commented above summed the situation quite clearly and that they are aware of my past and present commitment to the project. To sum it up, shortly, I am fully prepared to resume my uncontroversial wikignoming activities by working within the WikiProject namespace as outlined in the proposed motion. Despite good faithed efforts by some editors, there are many tasks that have not been carried out, with the detrimental effect for the project (and Wikipedia in general - from low recruitment of new members to low levels of copyediting activity). I feel I can resume doing them uncontroversially as I have been doing for the past several years (for that WikiProject, and as I've been doing for others, such as WikiProject Sociology and the Schools and Universities WikiProject).
To Risker: regarding six months, please note note that there have been no issues involving my editing since the case was opened in September last year.
Thank you for your consideration, and I want once again to thank the WikiProject members for their continued faith in me. I will not let you down, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I entirely agree with M.K. There are at least a dozen other WP projects which those who were very deservingly banned as a result of the EEML affair can engage themselves. I’d ask why we see this constant stream of ‘can I just do this thing? It’s completely uncontroversial’ requests but we know why: these people are expert at gaming the system. Banned means banned. Varsovian ( talk) 08:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I've tried to avoid controversy and refrain from commenting but sometimes enough is enough. In response to Varsovian and M.K I'd like to point out that
1) Wikipedia is no place for personal vendettas. Actually, that kind of thing reflects badly on a person in general, here or elsewhere.
2) The existence of other projects is irrelevant. Other people involved with WP:Poland made this request - hence they must think Piotrus' work would be very helpful. I'm sure Piotrus could involve himself in WikiProject Small Purple Rodents or whatever but he'd probably be pretty bad at it. He has lots of experience in this area and that is where his help is needed.
3) If other projects need help, then perhaps some users could expand their time and energies there, in a constructive manner, rather than wiki stalking editors and wasting people's time.
4) These previous "can I just do this thing" amendments - I believe this is a reference to my two amendments. I would like to point out that both of these amendments passed off without a hitch, without controversy, without any harm to anyone, without breaking of any rules. At the same time they resulted in the sourcing of 150+ unsourced BLPs, a clear benefit to the encyclopedia. Can Varsovian provide a single instance where these amendments were used to "game the system"? No? Then don't make empty and false accusations. That kind of thing reflects badly on a person, on Wikipedia and in general.
5) To add to 4) above, the only controversy is the empty controversy and battlegrounds that some editors are trying to foster here.
Because of the heinous nature of Piotrus' violations of the spirit of Wikipedia policies and practices, and because of the non-existence of any acknowledgement of wrong-doing, I would prefer to see that he serve at least 6 months of his topic ban before any such requests are considered. And even when they are, they should most certainly not have anything to do with process discussion, or even nominating articles for AfD. There would also need to be a narrow section of articles that he would be allowed to edit for maintenance - e.g. anything relating to Poland and it's interactions with other countries should definitely be off limits for the full twelve months. -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 11:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
That said, I admit I'm very hesitant to allow even seemingly uncontroversial edits to the articles themselves at this time. Too often, "uncontroversial" is anything but and lies in the eyes of the beholder. Accordingly, I wouldn't support that level of relaxation this soon. — Coren (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The current editing restriction affecting Piotrus ( talk · contribs) is to be amended to allow Piotrus to raise issues and discuss improvements to articles otherwise under the ban on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland talk page.
There being 16 arbitrators, 6 of whom are inactive, one recused, the majority is 5.
Enacted ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 00:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
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 Per Honor et Gloria ✍
2. ArbCom renews the topic ban from the PHG arbitration. Per Honor et Gloria ( talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, and Hellenistic India—all broadly defined. This topic ban will last for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.
In my previous Amendment Request, I documented the fact that the Franco-Mongol alliance is not a "novel theory" nor a "pet theory" of mine as claimed by Elonka and some others [5] [6], but on contrary something which is described as fact by a vast quantity, and even possibly the majority, of historians (See: 50 historians describing the existence of a Franco-Mongol alliance). This request was rejected on the ground that content disputes are outside ArbCom’s jurisdiction [7]. Well, in that case I believe most of Elonka’s claims against me [8], as well as several votes and comments in the last Amendment Request [9] [10] clearly become irrelevant.
I would like to know then upon what ground the current ban extension (for a 3rd year!) would be legitimate. In the time period since my previous ban ended and Elonka again asked for editing restrictions against me (2 weeks, from February 2nd to February 16th) I believe my editorial behavior has been exemplary:
Altogether, I must have done about 20 edits to the Franco-Mongol alliance page and its Talk page in that time period. I have been taking pains to make extremely well-sourced statements with mainstream academic online references so that all I write can be checked by anybody. No disputes, respect of the content of other contributors: Wikipedia editing at its best [11] [12] [13].
To use Elonka's own words, I tend to remain "very civil" [14]. As a gesture of goodwill, I have even made small presents to Elonka [15], explaining her several times that I wanted to please her and be her friend [16].
I remained highly factual in my contributions, and also systematically sourced them to scholarly online Google Book references so that everybody can check for themselves, and, if desired, can correct the Wikipedia content accordingly. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28].
I believe it is an injustice to extend a topic ban under such inadequate conditions. Please put me under some sort of probation if you wish, but don’t extend this topic ban without a good reason. I am asking for:
1) Either the lifting of restrictions or some sort of probation regarding editing in the "
Crusades and
Mongols" area.
2) The lifting of my editing restrictions on "
Hellenism and
India", which have absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand.
Best regards to all and thank you for your understanding.
Per Honor et Gloria
✍
12:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Didn't we just do this? Further repetitions of "I'm right, it's all Elonka's fault" are starting to make me think the ban should have been from talk pages as well. [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] Shell babelfish 21:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
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 NW ( Talk) at 16:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Moreschi, acting under the discretionary sanctions authorized under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement, placed Armenian Genocide on WP:1RR about two years ago. Sandstein is disputing the fact that Moreschi had the authority to do so, as he believes that discretionary sanctions were meant to be applied per-editor and not per-article. I request that the Arbitration Committee please clarify if Moreschi's action was appropriate and enforceable. NW ( Talk) 16:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that ArbCom clarification would be helpful here. I have explained the reasons why I have doubts whether the remedy covers this type of sanction at the AE thread. Sandstein 16:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
If there are no further questions, I believe this section can be archived in 48 hours. Risker ( talk) 19:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
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 35 | ← | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 |
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 20:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
ArbCom's
Strategic default?
|
---|
|
ArbCom's
Strategic default?
|
---|
|
In case these words are otherwise overlooked, I echo what Doc James writes here by asking what more is wanted?
Continued delay does not ameliorate any of the problems which ArbCom tacitly agreed to help resolve.
Continued inaction does not mitigate the consequences of the Gordian Knot which this forum wrongly fostered.
The arc of this case serves only to illustrate the relevance of Gresham's law in our Wikipedia community. -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
The original ArbCom participants in Tang Dynasty affirmed this principle:
Nick-D reminded ArbCom here that I was the one who inititiated this case. In compliance with what I understood to be ArbCom's instructions, I initiated this thread. These actions demonstrate my express purpose -- addressing perceived communication problems by seeking assistance. This deserves due respect.
However, ArbCom's failures of communication impede both collaboration and resolution. We confront serious problems. Thus far, ArbCom itself has not conformed with this adduced principle. Working together, we can move beyond the serial failures of the past year.-- Tenmei ( talk) 18:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom's
Strategic default?
|
---|
|
What distinguishes this thread from " Strategic default"? If this is not " Strategic default", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.
ArbCom's
Strategic default?
|
---|
|
What distinguishes this thread from " Strategic default"? If this is not " Strategic default", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.
ArbCom's
Strategic default?
|
---|
How this will work has been made explicit -- expressly provided for by ArbCom or created in order to facilitate the implied Tang Dynasty objectives. I cast a wide net as part of an outside-the-box search for a cohort of co-mentors. My best interests are fulfilled only if their investments of time and thought are made easy and effective.
|
What distinguishes this thread from " Strategic default"? If this is not " Strategic default", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.
Moving the goalposts
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
What respects volunteers? This confirmation process can be moved forward by repeating a fundamental axiom: "My best interests are fulfilled only if these volunteers' investments of time and thought are made easy and effective." Risker's questions are not easy; and whatever time volunteers might invest in answering would likely produce little more than ineffective guesswork. In part, mentorship was proposed by ArbCom as a remedy because, "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". In contrast, the wide-ranging search for volunteers ensured that a broad range of tools are available. In part, the group-structure was necessitated by the problems which flow from the ArbCom neologism; and this explains why my Mentorship Committee is comprised of (a) "mentors", as described at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Involuntary mentorship; and (b) "mentors", as conventionally understood and described at Mentorship. No one has volunteered to investigate the conceptual flaws in ArbCom's terminology nor in devising flexible mentoring group structures; rather, each has expressed a willingness to invest a limited amount of time in helping me improve how I participate in our encyclopedia-building project. I construe my responsibilities to "keep my eye on the ball" -- which means paying attention to a changing focal point which encompasses each person’s expectation of what the other expects him to expect to be expected to do. What is the main thing? At User talk:FloNight#Tenmei's mentor, the main objective was clarified: "... a mentor is like a coach mostly." In this explicit context, words from the userpage of Kraftlos offer a succinct response to Risker's three questions and any corollaries:
In June 2009, FloNight restated ArbCom's objectives:
Now is the time to let these volunteer mentors get to work. Reinventing the wheel. As FloNight explained in June 2009, "... if mentors see a new problem they can make it clear to him that they will tell us so that we can promptly handle it. This approach usually works best." As succinctly expressed by SMcCandlish here, " ...this is an encyclopedia-bulding project, not an experiment in virtual governance ...."
|
What distinguishes this thread from " moving the goalposts"? If this is not " moving the goalposts", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.
Raising the bar
|
---|
The responses to Steve Smith + Coren + Roger Davies + Risker are comprehensive and clear. Carcharoth's words are like raising the bar, which here takes the form of " feature creep" as objectives are redefined. According to the Wikipedia article about the phrase " moving the goalpost":
At best, Carcharoth's reasoning illustrates a perfect solution fallacy which is inapposite in this unique case. In a context ArbCom has created, it is seemly to adopt the words of DGG as my own.
Carcharoth's diff discourages me. This is truly harmful when it is perceived as discouraging by others. -- Tenmei ( talk) 18:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
|
What distinguishes this thread from " raising the bar"? If this is not " raising the bar", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.
Extending a finish line
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
What distinguishes this thread from " extending a finish line"? If this is not " extending a finish line", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.
Changing the terms
|
---|
The concerns and reservations raised in this thread are addressed in different ways by each of the mentors. For today, your questions become a kind of red herring except for this:
Each member of the Arbitration Committee should to construe Robofish's words as a justifiable criticism of logical errors in ArbCom-approved mentorship schema. I was able to pursuaede Robofish to step forward; and this modest achievement was undermined. ArbCom snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by effectively persuading Robofish to withdraw.
|
What distinguishes this thread from " Changing the terms"? If this is not " Changing the terms", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.
Your comment here in Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 is relevant in this Tang Dynasty thread: You explained that "[i]n general I dislike giving good-faith requests the runaround."
As it turned out, this Kafkaesque Tang Dynasty ordeal has been naught but a runaround.
As you know, Tang Dynasty began over a year ago when I proposed a very narrowly-defined case. As an appropriate context for this thread, that long-ago beginng remains modest, timely and relevant.
Let me refresh your memory of what I presented as context for narrow questions about how to deflect straw man arguments by re-asserting core policies and the importance of academic credibility in our Wikipedia project. I explained here:
This ArbCom process has produced many questions, but these are the ones with which I began. What ensued was unhelpful. You may recall that you summarized this Gordian Knot as a "welter of words" here.
Any assertion or response I tried to present was overwhelmed. What evolved in the past year has taken on a life of its own. Whether viewed from the starting point over a year ago, or construed in the terms of this one thread, this has been a runaround.
Why?
What distinguishes this thread from a " runaround" If this is not a " runaround", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.
Shell Kinney -- Your comment here in Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 is relevant in this Tang Dynasty thread: You explained that "You're back on the right path - give it some time before immersing yourself in a difficult environment again."
In this Tang Dynasty case, please let me refresh your memory of what I presented as context for narrow questions about how to deflect straw man arguments by re-asserting core policies and the importance of academic credibility in our Wikipedia project. I explained here:
Whether viewed from the starting point over a year ago, or construed in the terms of this one thread, I have undoubtedly satisfied whatever anyone might mean by "'give it some time' before immersing yourself in a difficult environment again." Arguably, the effort to locate mentors and their comments in this thread was progress along "the right path" and yet, there is no joy in Mudville.
Why?
What distinguishes this thread from "the right path?" If this is not a "the right path", please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me.
As requested by Tenmei I will provide some oversight over his editing. I hope that this will allow everyone to get back to what we are here for, writing an encyclopedia. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC) (jmh649)
I as well have volunteered to provide some oversight. Arbcom said that he is topic banned, does that mean he can contribute to those areas while under oversight, or does it simply mean he needs to be observed in all his edits? -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 04:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm willing to help Tenmei learn to be concise when posting comments. Based on my observations, he has a tendency to be excessively wordy in his posts, which in turn lends itself to people having a tl;dr reaction to his posts. As long as there are several people on this "mentorship committee", I'm willing to help out. I have a lot of other things I do here, and I'd like this to have only a small impact on that. I think Tenmei can learn and improve (and he has in many ways), so hopefully this mentorship will be deemed unnecessary at some future point. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm continuing to provide Tenmei with advice by email as I had offered here. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 17:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Despite some prior discussion with Tenmei about being a mentor, I chose not to be in this group because i thought the process more complicated than necessary, and there were already quite enough other people. But I can't see any objections if Tenmai wants to try it, since there are willing mentors of high editing quality and proven responsibility. DGG ( talk ) 20:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I am willing to assisst Tenmei in oversighting his edits. Leujohn ( talk, stalk me?) 13:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I was told by Amory that Risker had posed some questions here and that I was supposed to come answer them. I'm assuming these are the questions:
It has been said that Wikipedia too easily devolves into a MMORPG. These arbitration actions seem to cross the line more easily than other Wikipedia activities. Risker's questions imply that the mentorship group needs fixed rules for interactions with marauding barbarians and some kind of definite written constitution in order to guide our actions so that our swords are not cutting one another rather than the orcs around us. Nihonjoe is right on the money. We'll work like reasonably intelligent adult human beings and resolve the differences in the true Wikipedia manner--by working toward consensus. (As a note, I don't know where Risker's questions are--he didn't bother to put them in a separate subsection here so that I don't waste my time trying to hack through the jungle. I just used Nihonjoe's summary of them above.)
Here is my take on the situation so far.
When I was first approached by Tenmei to be a volunteer mentor, I made it clear what I thought his problem with communication was. I severely critiqued several of his posts, but while he made them shorter, he still continued to wander off into meaningless metaphor, cut an excessively fine point to the details of his comments, and invent meaningless techno-babble to describe the Arbitration process and his frustrations with aspects of it. Unfortunately, I think it is the style of writing and communication which he learned as a young man and it is so ingrained in him that he is unable to recognize it, let alone change it. It means that his ability to communicate effectively in a discussion and content disagreement on Wikipedia, where the majority of editors do not share the ground from which he draws his metaphors, is severely limited. The techno-babble he invents and insists on using, despite my efforts to tell him to stop using it, means that he actually clouds the issue he is discussing more than he enlightens it. The longer he writes using unknown metaphors and invented techno-babble, the more meaningless his comments become. I hate to be so harsh, but after reading his first email, I stopped reading past the first two sentences of subsequent emails. He fails to understand that other Wikipedia editors will do exactly the same thing in any content dispute. While his expertise would be a great contribution to Wikipedia, he is unable to communicate it to the typical Wikipedia editor. Imagine going into battle with two weapons. One weapon will kill one enemy at a time, but has a single button that says, "Push to fire". The other weapon will kill all enemies at once, but has a 1,000-page instruction manual that details the history of the weapon's development, the academic qualifications of its makers, the theory behind its operation, and the instruction "Push the red button to fire" buried on page 739 in the middle of the page. Unfortunately, Tenmei wrote the latter instruction and I'm not certain that the writer who produced the 1,000-page instruction manual is capable of creating a sticker on the side of the weapon that says "Push to fire". To him, it's just not elegant or subtle or finely-honed enough; it carries none of the warnings or history or comparisons to classical warfare that decorate the verbiage of the manual. ( Taivo ( talk) 22:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC))
I'll keep this brief. When I agreed to be a mentor, I assumed it would be a fairly simple task, a matter of overseeing Tenmei's edits, giving him occasional advice, and helping him to resolve disputes (or, ideally, avoid getting into them in the first place). It looks now that it would be something more complex and formal, involving discussing things with the other mentors and agreeing with them before deciding whether any particular action can receive our approval. Basically, it sounds like it's getting too bureaucratic to me, and as I don't have as much time to spend on Wikipedia as I used to anyway, I think I have to drop out. Sorry Tenmei - I hope you're able to work something out here and reach a universally acceptable solution that will allow you to return to editing, but I don't think I'm able to be part of it. Robofish ( talk) 00:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Per request, I've taken the time to review the posed questions and provide my answers, as well as my general understanding of the situation. First of all, I believe that Tenmei has the basics of becoming a good Wikipedia editor. However, one skill in which Tenmei needs assistance is in collaboration with others. Bombarding users with philosophical metaphors is not very helpful. I'm eager to assist because what I see in Tenmei is something I see in myself ... that is, I find myself in real life trying to provide all the possible information I can, instead of just what the requester asked for. I think, in time, we'll both learn something during this process, and that appeals to me.
Now, as to the questions posed by Risker:
(a) how you will address differences amongst yourselves (a situation we have encountered in other mentoring situations)?
(b) what range of actions you are willing to undertake as individuals and as a group?
(c) how the "group" will work when Tenmei is also receiving private advice from individuals not specifically included in the group of mentors.
I think that the goal here is a sound one ... provide Tenmei with guidance as to how to better collaborate with other editors on the project, and I'm prepared to assist in any way I can.
-- McDoobAU93 ( talk) 00:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with the others who have commented here. This is simply us checking in on Tenmei and trying to keep him going in a positive direction. I know you guys were expecting some sort of formal process here, but to me that seems counterproductive. I imagine any of us can comment on his editing habits, and if needed we can ask the other mentors for opinions. This isn't rocket science. I think Tenmei's editing has been held up for too long, the only way he is going to learn is through practice. So what is this:
How does that sound? -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 04:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Note that John Carter ( contribs) has not edited since December 24. I don't think there's any point in waiting for a reply from him at this point in time before proceeding. The others have all replied. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 16:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for not paying attention tot his discussion lately. I was off wiki the last week or so.
Please remember that I am not the only mentor, so I am only speaking for myself. Leujohn ( talk, stalk me?) 10:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the recommendations above are reasonable. Details can be determined if events occur. I think it is time to get Tenmei back to editing the main space. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Tenmei is reminded of the remedies from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty that apply to him. Specifically:
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 — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk at 21:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
User:Piotrus used to perform a number of uncontroversial housekeeping tasks for WikiProject Poland that did not involve content editing of articles related to Poland. For example, he monitored newly-created Poland-related articles and, where appropriate, added applicable clean-up tags (including nominating them for deletion when necessary), nominated them for DYK, and invited their creators to the WikiProject. (A fairly complete list of his former responsibilities can be found here.)
When Piotrus was blocked, User:Jniech volunteered to take on some of those responsibilities. Jniech made a good faith effort, but for a variety of reasons Jniech has not been able to keep up with the necessary tasks. Both Jniech and I have asked for assistance, but none of the other WikiProject Poland members have volunteered to step in. Consequently, these tasks have not been performed for several months.
I hereby request an amendment to Piotrus's topic ban in order that he may once again perform these housekeeping tasks and post messages to WikiProject Poland to inform other editors about such tasks. Piotrus would be strictly prohibited from editing the content of any Poland-related articles except for the types of uncontroversial maintenance edits mentioned above.
In the alternative, I request an amendment to Piotrus's topic ban in order that he may inform me of any new Poland-related articles that, in his opinion, should be tagged for clean-up (including deletion), or of any other WikiProject-related tasks.
To the best of my knowledge, all that Malik Shabazz says above is true. Piotrus has played an essential role in the production and maintenance of articles pertaining to Poland and Poland's broader geographic and historic milieu. Had Piotrus never written an article himself — and he has doubtless been one of the most productive editors on these and other subjects — his role in the cleaning-up of existing articles would still have made him one of the most productive editors on the English Wikipedia. Malik Shabazz's proposal, if adopted, will strengthen the project in a very substantial and noticeable way. Nihil novi ( talk) 06:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
As stated above, User:Piotrus was of great help for WikiProject Poland. It would be extremely beneficial for the project if he would be able to perform easy non-controversial tasks for the project. His cleanup abilities are needed. - Darwinek ( talk) 19:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
If an editor feels some article needs an additional tag, banner, cat etc pp, WP:SOFIXIT applies.
Malik Shabazz based this request on his co-project member Jniech's mid-February request. Angus McLellan promptly offered advise on how to properly deal with the issues Jniech was uncertain about, while MS proposed to go to this board, and prepared this request in his user space afterwards. MS's assumtion that "A fairly complete list of his [Piotrus'] former responsibilities can be found here" is false. As any editor, Piotrus does not have any responsibilities here, except for playing by the (few) rules. The list MS linked are not Piotrus' responsibilities, but a list of optional, volunteer maintenance tasks that may be performed by anyone. MS's assumption that "these tasks have not been performed for several months" remains unproven, and it is neither shown that there is anything that really needs to be done and is not done. Skäpperöd ( talk) 08:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
As it has been said above, Piotrus took significant role to create and improve hundreds of Poland and European related articles. Many of them became articles with the highest Wikipedia standards what can be seen by numerous of DYKs, Featured, A-Class and Good articles. I totally agree with Malik Shabazz and I believe (I know) Piotrus' work on WP:Poland will be beneficial for Wikipedia. Visor ( talk) 19:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Poland has a number of members but it is the number willing to do the work that is important. A few of us tried to cover for Piotrus. It is our failure that resulted in this request as without Piotrus help the backlog of outstanding tasks is only going to increase.
Further in my mind adding a template or recommending an article for DYK is not really breaking Piotrus ban on editing article on central and eastern European topics.
Members of Wikipedia can help with many issues but there is the issue of maintaining consistency. Only someone with years of knowledge on Polish related articles can help with this.
It only hurts Wikipedia by not considering this request. Piotrus appears to have broken the rules and some form of punishment was warranted. Stopping Piotrus adding content and discussing articles on central and eastern European issues maybe fair but taking part in “uncontroversial housekeeping tasks” seems unnecessary. In olden days, prisons were for punishment. In these more enlighten days rehabilitation is the goal. Why not consider this? If Piotrus breaks the rules then increase the length of ban but stopping him doing house keeping others can’t be bothered doing seems wrong.
Those who doubt that there is a need only has to monitor the WikiProject Poland page to see increasing numbers of Poland-related articles by quality and importance which are not assessed and that is including those we are failing to tag Jniech ( talk) 09:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC).
Given the long history of off-wiki games, disruptive coordination to circumvent Wikipedia policies, tag-teaming, stealth canvassing etc. any attempt to ease any sanctions should begin with a full acknowledgement of guilt by the sanctioned party. And by full acknowledgement I mean not "non-apology apologies" that we did have before, not wikilawering or beating around the bushes, but straightforward admition by the sanctioned party that it understands why it was sanctioned, and admits that its actions such as 'tag team' edit-warring, abuse of dispute resolution processes, proxying for blocked user and encouraging and advising other Wikipedia editors to circumvent Wikipedia policies were disruptive, harmed Wikipedia’s integrity and will never be repeated again. Without such statement any motion to ease these sanctions should not even be considered.
Finally, none of those “tasks” listed above are vital to the project and easily can be carried out by other members of the project. If Piotrus has too much free time, he can work in dozen other WP projects. Saying that, I perfectly understand that we will see countless other typical “amendments”, “calcifications” and “requests“ in the near future. M.K. ( talk) 06:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I can only confirm that Piotrus housekeeping tasks related Poland-related articles are missed now. Besides, Piotrus used to do an outstanding job indirectly motivating other editors to improve the quality of the project articles, and this is missed too. It seems that the proposed amendment can only do good and I can see no harm in it. -- Lysy talk 19:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Time flies. The month of April is already getting close to an end. Piotrus is going to return to full time editing in several months, regardless of any amendments to EEML. I ask. Why not allow him to return to his area of expertise one step at a time, and, take on noncontroversial tasks in the process of recovery. The Project Poland has been virtually dormant since the New Years, with only rudimentary maintenance and peripheral activities taking place. Poland–related DYKs have all but vanished from the front page of Wikipedia since last year. Naturally, Piotrus is not going to make up for all the loses endured by the Project, but his own prior devotion to this portal would be a good place to gradually start rebuilding. -- Poeticbent talk 20:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
well, i can`t write a lot about the eeml-stuff because i haven`t followed the progress in detail and i`m sure that the arbcom was as carefully as always. i want to provide an other point: Piotrus is an experienced university outreach user - especially as main contributor of WP:SUP, where he runs his own sociology project every term - and expanded the perspectives of this part of the wikipedia. he is trusted there as well as on the real life aspects of this matter and so i would be pleased if it would be possible to give him the chance to run a SUP-project of his own again, best regards -- Jan eissfeldt ( talk) 20:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I did not want to comment earlier as I wanted to avoid influencing the discussion. I feel that the experienced members of the WikiProject Poland who commented above summed the situation quite clearly and that they are aware of my past and present commitment to the project. To sum it up, shortly, I am fully prepared to resume my uncontroversial wikignoming activities by working within the WikiProject namespace as outlined in the proposed motion. Despite good faithed efforts by some editors, there are many tasks that have not been carried out, with the detrimental effect for the project (and Wikipedia in general - from low recruitment of new members to low levels of copyediting activity). I feel I can resume doing them uncontroversially as I have been doing for the past several years (for that WikiProject, and as I've been doing for others, such as WikiProject Sociology and the Schools and Universities WikiProject).
To Risker: regarding six months, please note note that there have been no issues involving my editing since the case was opened in September last year.
Thank you for your consideration, and I want once again to thank the WikiProject members for their continued faith in me. I will not let you down, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I entirely agree with M.K. There are at least a dozen other WP projects which those who were very deservingly banned as a result of the EEML affair can engage themselves. I’d ask why we see this constant stream of ‘can I just do this thing? It’s completely uncontroversial’ requests but we know why: these people are expert at gaming the system. Banned means banned. Varsovian ( talk) 08:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I've tried to avoid controversy and refrain from commenting but sometimes enough is enough. In response to Varsovian and M.K I'd like to point out that
1) Wikipedia is no place for personal vendettas. Actually, that kind of thing reflects badly on a person in general, here or elsewhere.
2) The existence of other projects is irrelevant. Other people involved with WP:Poland made this request - hence they must think Piotrus' work would be very helpful. I'm sure Piotrus could involve himself in WikiProject Small Purple Rodents or whatever but he'd probably be pretty bad at it. He has lots of experience in this area and that is where his help is needed.
3) If other projects need help, then perhaps some users could expand their time and energies there, in a constructive manner, rather than wiki stalking editors and wasting people's time.
4) These previous "can I just do this thing" amendments - I believe this is a reference to my two amendments. I would like to point out that both of these amendments passed off without a hitch, without controversy, without any harm to anyone, without breaking of any rules. At the same time they resulted in the sourcing of 150+ unsourced BLPs, a clear benefit to the encyclopedia. Can Varsovian provide a single instance where these amendments were used to "game the system"? No? Then don't make empty and false accusations. That kind of thing reflects badly on a person, on Wikipedia and in general.
5) To add to 4) above, the only controversy is the empty controversy and battlegrounds that some editors are trying to foster here.
Because of the heinous nature of Piotrus' violations of the spirit of Wikipedia policies and practices, and because of the non-existence of any acknowledgement of wrong-doing, I would prefer to see that he serve at least 6 months of his topic ban before any such requests are considered. And even when they are, they should most certainly not have anything to do with process discussion, or even nominating articles for AfD. There would also need to be a narrow section of articles that he would be allowed to edit for maintenance - e.g. anything relating to Poland and it's interactions with other countries should definitely be off limits for the full twelve months. -- Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 11:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
That said, I admit I'm very hesitant to allow even seemingly uncontroversial edits to the articles themselves at this time. Too often, "uncontroversial" is anything but and lies in the eyes of the beholder. Accordingly, I wouldn't support that level of relaxation this soon. — Coren (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
The current editing restriction affecting Piotrus ( talk · contribs) is to be amended to allow Piotrus to raise issues and discuss improvements to articles otherwise under the ban on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland talk page.
There being 16 arbitrators, 6 of whom are inactive, one recused, the majority is 5.
Enacted ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 00:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
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 Per Honor et Gloria ✍
2. ArbCom renews the topic ban from the PHG arbitration. Per Honor et Gloria ( talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, and Hellenistic India—all broadly defined. This topic ban will last for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.
In my previous Amendment Request, I documented the fact that the Franco-Mongol alliance is not a "novel theory" nor a "pet theory" of mine as claimed by Elonka and some others [5] [6], but on contrary something which is described as fact by a vast quantity, and even possibly the majority, of historians (See: 50 historians describing the existence of a Franco-Mongol alliance). This request was rejected on the ground that content disputes are outside ArbCom’s jurisdiction [7]. Well, in that case I believe most of Elonka’s claims against me [8], as well as several votes and comments in the last Amendment Request [9] [10] clearly become irrelevant.
I would like to know then upon what ground the current ban extension (for a 3rd year!) would be legitimate. In the time period since my previous ban ended and Elonka again asked for editing restrictions against me (2 weeks, from February 2nd to February 16th) I believe my editorial behavior has been exemplary:
Altogether, I must have done about 20 edits to the Franco-Mongol alliance page and its Talk page in that time period. I have been taking pains to make extremely well-sourced statements with mainstream academic online references so that all I write can be checked by anybody. No disputes, respect of the content of other contributors: Wikipedia editing at its best [11] [12] [13].
To use Elonka's own words, I tend to remain "very civil" [14]. As a gesture of goodwill, I have even made small presents to Elonka [15], explaining her several times that I wanted to please her and be her friend [16].
I remained highly factual in my contributions, and also systematically sourced them to scholarly online Google Book references so that everybody can check for themselves, and, if desired, can correct the Wikipedia content accordingly. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28].
I believe it is an injustice to extend a topic ban under such inadequate conditions. Please put me under some sort of probation if you wish, but don’t extend this topic ban without a good reason. I am asking for:
1) Either the lifting of restrictions or some sort of probation regarding editing in the "
Crusades and
Mongols" area.
2) The lifting of my editing restrictions on "
Hellenism and
India", which have absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand.
Best regards to all and thank you for your understanding.
Per Honor et Gloria
✍
12:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Didn't we just do this? Further repetitions of "I'm right, it's all Elonka's fault" are starting to make me think the ban should have been from talk pages as well. [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] Shell babelfish 21:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}
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 NW ( Talk) at 16:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Moreschi, acting under the discretionary sanctions authorized under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#Amended_Remedies_and_Enforcement, placed Armenian Genocide on WP:1RR about two years ago. Sandstein is disputing the fact that Moreschi had the authority to do so, as he believes that discretionary sanctions were meant to be applied per-editor and not per-article. I request that the Arbitration Committee please clarify if Moreschi's action was appropriate and enforceable. NW ( Talk) 16:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that ArbCom clarification would be helpful here. I have explained the reasons why I have doubts whether the remedy covers this type of sanction at the AE thread. Sandstein 16:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
If there are no further questions, I believe this section can be archived in 48 hours. Risker ( talk) 19:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)