---

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:

• Tenmei ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• John Carter ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) -- notice/diff
• Jmh649 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- notice/diff
• Kraftlos ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- notice/diff
• Leujohn ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- notice/diff
• McDoobAU93 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- notice/diff
• Robofish ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- notice/diff
• Taivo ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- notice/diff

Statement by Tenmei

ArbCom decisions in December set in motion a slow process which now calls for further ArbCom action.

ArbCom remedies required that I locate a mentor or mentors. This is a list of volunteers:

According to the Wikipedia article about the phrase " moving the goalpost":

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

I do understand bad faith, but I reject applying the concept to ArbCom members. At the same time, I observe that ArbCom appears to be

• Moving the goalposts — not good
• Raising the bar — not good
• Extending a finish line — not good
• Changing the terms — not good

We can distinguish between bad faith and mere mistakes; however, we cannot reject the relevance of unstated assumptions which produce unintended consequences.

The good faith of volunteer mentors has been subjected to a needless form of abuse. -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Echo

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

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

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

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

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

Adduced principle: Communication

The original ArbCom participants in Tang Dynasty affirmed this principle:

6) Editors should use their best efforts to communicate with one another, particular when disputes arise. When an editor's input is consistently unclear or difficult to follow, the merits of his or her position may not be fully understood by those reading the communication. An editor's failure to communicate concerns with sufficient clarity, conciseness and succinctness, or with insufficient attention to detail, or failure to focus on the topic being discussed, can impede both collaborative editing and dispute resolution. Editors should recognise when this is the case and take steps to address the problems, either on their own or, where necessary, by seeking assistance.

[emphasis underlining + italics added]

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 20:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Wizardman 21:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
4. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [pf]} 00:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
6.   Roger Davies ^talk 08:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
7. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
8. -- Vassyana ( talk) 01:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
9. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 23:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
10. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

Response to Steve Smith

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

Ping.

SteveSmith -- Now what? Cui bono?

• This whatever-it-is is indistinguishable from punishment; and I'm left wondering what precisely am I being punished for?
• What recidivism is thus prevented?

How are the volunteer mentors and others in the community expected to construe this thread? What are you going to do? -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to Coren

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

Ping.

Coren -- Now what? Cui bono?

• This whatever-it-is is indistinguishable from punishment; and I'm left wondering what precisely am I being punished for?
• What recidivism is thus prevented?

How are the volunteer mentors and others in the community expected to construe this thread? What are you going to do? -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to RogerDavies

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

Ping.

Roger Davies -- Now what? Cui bono?

• This whatever-it-is is indistinguishable from punishment; and I'm left wondering what precisely am I being punished for?
• What recidivism is thus prevented?

How are the volunteer mentors and others in the community expected to construe this thread? What are you going to do? -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to Risker – Moving the goalposts

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

Ping.

Risker -- Now what? Cui bono?

• This whatever-it-is is indistinguishable from punishment; and I'm left wondering what precisely am I being punished for?
• What recidivism is thus prevented?

How are the volunteer mentors and others in the community expected to construe this thread? What are you going to do? -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to Carcharoth – Raising the bar

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

Ping.

Carcharoth -- Now what? Cui bono?

• This whatever-it-is is indistinguishable from punishment; and I'm left wondering what precisely am I being punished for?
• What recidivism is thus prevented?

How are the volunteer mentors and others in the community expected to construe this thread? What are you going to do? -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to SirFozzie – Extending a finish line

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

Ping.

SirFozzie -- Now what? Cui bono?

• This whatever-it-is is indistinguishable from punishment; and I'm left wondering what precisely am I being punished for?
• What recidivism is thus prevented?

How are the volunteer mentors and others in the community expected to construe this thread? What are you going to do? -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to Hersfold – Changing the terms

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

Ping.

Hersfold -- Now what? Cui bono?

• This whatever-it-is is indistinguishable from punishment; and I'm left wondering what precisely am I being punished for?
• What recidivism is thus prevented?

How are the volunteer mentors and others in the community expected to construe this thread? What are you going to do? -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to Newyorkbrad — Runaround?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

Ping.

Newyorkbrad -- -- Now what? Cui bono?

• This whatever-it-is is indistinguishable from punishment; and I'm left wondering what precisely am I being punished for?
• What recidivism is thus prevented?

How are the volunteer mentors and others in the community expected to construe this thread? What are you going to do? -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to Shell — Give it some time?

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

Ping.

Shell Kinney -- Now what? Cui bono?

• This whatever-it-is is indistinguishable from punishment; and I'm left wondering what precisely am I being punished for?
• What recidivism is thus prevented?

How are the volunteer mentors and others in the community expected to construe this thread? What are you going to do? -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Doc james

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

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

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

Tenmei has not made an article edit for three months [1] this after he was consistently making a thousand a month. I would recommend he resume editing slowly so that we may have time to adjust or edit a different topic areas. Will be happy to look at concerns. I do not believe a formal process is required. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

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

I try to provide advice in such a way as to support and supplement the approach of those who have agreed to be mentors. I would like to see Tenmei back to editing articles: I think Tenmei has a great capacity for providing referenced material to build articles. ☺ Coppertwig ( talk) 19:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

May Tenmei have permission to return to editing? I will keep an eye on things this week and provide feedback. As it has been more than 3 months I think it would be reasonable to move forwards. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• So what's happening now? -- Kraftlos ( Talk | Contrib) 07:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Comments from Nihonjoe

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

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

This seems to me that Risker is assuming we're all idiots here (that's the impression I get from the tone of these questions). As with everything else on Wikipedia, if I have a concern or disagreement I'll discuss it with anyone involved. Not sure if you're looking for something else here, Risker, but this one is really a no-brainer.

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

I have no idea what you mean here. I'll help where I can, and that's it. I don't plan on monitoring Tenmei 24/7, if that's what you mean, but if there is an issue and someone brings it up to me, I'll look into it.

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

Again, I think you're making this far more complicated than it needs to be, Risker. If Tenmei is receiving "private" advice, then he's receiving private advice and it's not likely we'll know about it unless it's posted on the site somewhere. If there's an issue we need to discuss, then we'll discuss it. There's no need to act as if we're children here, Risker. Tenmei is obviously willing to work with us and we're willing to work with him on this issue. Tenmei has complied with every little nit-picky thing you've come up with, and yet you still keep throwing out more that he must do. There's a limit to how many hoops you should make someone jump through when they are going above and beyond to show they are willing to improve. Do you want something signed in blood to prove it? Sorry if I sound a bit miffed here, but I believe this is another case where ArbCom is going far beyond the bounds of what they are supposed to do. Perhaps it's time you started assuming a little good faith on the part of those who've offered to help rather than giving us all the third degree and acting as if we're all idiots who don't know how to work here. We've all been here for a long time, and have a proven track record showing we know how things work and how to interact, so posing these "Duh" questions is pointless and makes it appears as if you believe we don't have the experience we do. ··· 日本穣 ^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Taivo

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

Here is my take on the situation so far.

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

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

Comment from Robofish

I'll keep this brief. When I agreed to be a mentor, I assumed it would be a fairly simple task, a matter of overseeing Tenmei's edits, giving him occasional advice, and helping him to resolve disputes (or, ideally, avoid getting into them in the first place). It looks now that it would be something more complex and formal, involving discussing things with the other mentors and agreeing with them before deciding whether any particular action can receive our approval. Basically, it sounds like it's getting too bureaucratic to me, and as I don't have as much time to spend on 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)

Comment from McDoobAU93

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

Now, as to the questions posed by Risker:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment from Kraftlos

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

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

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

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

Note from Coppertwig

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

Statement by Leujohn

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

Response to Risker

I will try to make my answers as brief as possible, as I do not want to add to any possible confusion.

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

I do not think I am qualified to answer this question on my own, as I am not the only mentor. The only thing I can say for sure is that we will talk it out. Us mentors have had quite a few discussions on Google Wave that have turned out very well, and I believe that this can continue. However, we are mentors for Tenmei, not the ruler of him. Should we get into a major conflict, I will try to reach a compromise with the group, but should even that fail, we will give Tenmei our options and I trust that he is capable of distinguishing what option is best for him.

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

As an individual, I am willing to be an advisor to Tenmei, but I will not force him to follow what I say, as should he thinks what I say is not the best way, I cannot do much to force him to "obey" me. Tenmei should be unlikely to get into an argument, but should he do, I am willing to be a mediator, but I will not be part of the argument for his side, as the only possible outcome of me doing that is flaring up the argument more. I think the rest of the group will agree with me on this.

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

I believe that if Tenmei trusts someone enough as to let that someone mentor him, I see no reason why I should disallow him to do so, but I will try to give some additional advice regarding the matter.

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

Comments by Doc James

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

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

Clerk notes

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

So done. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 19:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• The proposed mentors have been advised that voting on the motion has commenced -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) ( talk) 18:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Tenmei, is it your plan for all of these people to be your mentors, or are you presenting a range of options in the hopes that ArbCom will designate which are acceptable? As well, your concision is appreciated, but there is no need to post word counts along with each of your comments. Steve Smith ( talk) 22:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• This looks to be at least worth a shot. Steve Smith ( talk) 01:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• It would be helpful if the editors put forward as proposed mentors would chime in here before any decision is made; but I'll point out that a return to editing suitably assisted is a desirable outcome and would be looked upon favorably. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
• I also welcome suggestions from the suggested mentors about how this will work in practise.   Roger Davies ^talk 05:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• I note the comments of a few of the editors approached to act as mentors. I would like to know (a) how you will address differences amongst yourselves (a situation we have encountered in other mentoring situations); (b) what range of actions you are willing to undertake as individuals and as a group; (c) how the "group" will work when Tenmei is also receiving private advice from individuals not specifically included in the group of mentors. In answer to the question above, Tenmei's six-month topic ban on the subject of Tang Dynasty begins once the mentorship is approved. Risker ( talk) 05:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Tenmei, I have noted your response to me above; however, I would really like to hear from your own mentors how they will address, at the minimum, differences amongst themselves. I was observant of the challenges and issues that arose out of some previous mentorships where there was a large team of mentors, and I do not believe that anyone involved was really satisfied with the situation. One mentor would advise the editor to do X, and another mentor would disagree and say that Y was the right course, for example; or Mentor C would identify behaviour as blockable, while Mentor D thought it was a perfectly reasonable response. I can live with the idea of mentors returning to this board for clarification (and hope that we will be somewhat more responsive), but it's important to understand how this large a team will work for your benefit, Tenmei. I am very concerned about you receiving mixed or inconsistent messages. Risker ( talk) 03:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• This can't move forward until Risker's questions above are answered. Could a clerk please notify the editors who need to comment here. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 13:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Tenmei, if you want DGG to comment here, by all means invite him to do so. As for your comments about "raising the bar", it is not unreasonable for us to ask the possible mentors to lay out here what they see as their role in all this. I count, so far, Doc James and Kraftlos (of those you list) and in addition to this, Nihonjoe and Coppertwig. The layout at User talk:Tenmei/Sub-page Alerts is impressive, but there needs to be some indication of how this will work, otherwise this risks becoming a time sink if it goes wrong. Carcharoth ( talk) 19:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Tenmei, I'm supportive of you resuming editing with mentors, but please be patient and wait for other arbitrators and those willing to mentor you to respond here. I realise it must be frustrating for you, but if you wait just a little bit longer and let others speak, then we may finally get something workable set up here. We want this to work, not collapse because it was not set up properly. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• At this point, I'm not sure any mentorship program will work, considering the difficulties to get to this point. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm going to leave my vote that it is now (disallowing the situation), but willing to be outvoted/persuaded. SirFozzie ( talk) 14:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• I am not entirely convinced that allowing Tenmei to return to editing would be a positive, especially given the comments he's made here. However, if the mentors are certain that they would be able to make a positive difference here, I'm willing to give it a shot. I'd need to see responses from all of them to Risker's questions, though, and that hasn't happened. I'd also like to know what efforts you (the mentors) will each make to ensure that Tenmei is continuing to be monitored in times of your absence; should several of you be temporarily inactive at the same time, what is your plan B? Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 19:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Question for Tenmei: As an extension to Risker's question C, would you be willing to identify these private mentors to your public mentors, so that if there is some disagreement between the two, the public mentors may contact them for discussion? Risker's questions address disunion amongst your public mentors, but when your private and public mentors disagree, I don't want this turning into a "mom said no, so let's ask dad" situation. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 19:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Motion

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

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

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

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

Support

1. Tenmei has made a genuine effort as directed by the Arbitration Committee to seek out suitable mentors, who have demonstrated their willingness to work with Tenmei. Risker ( talk) 17:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
2. —  Coren  ^(talk) 18:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
3. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
4. Shell ^babelfish 08:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
5. Willing to give it a shot. KnightLago ( talk) 19:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
6. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
7.   Roger Davies ^talk 16:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
8. I am willing to see this tried, and will hold off on further comment until we see how it works out. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 04:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Per previous notes. SirFozzie ( talk) 18:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Recuse

Abstain

---

Initiated by —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk at 21:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Case affected

Eastern European mailing list arbitration case ( t) ( ev /  t) ( w /  t) ( pd /  t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Remedy 3: Piotrus is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Malik Shabazz ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Piotrus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• Piotrus

Amendment 1

• Remedy 3: Piotrus is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year.
• See below for proposed modification and alternative proposal.

Statement by Malik Shabazz

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.

Statement by Nihil novi

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)

Statement by Darwinek

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)

Comment by Skäpperöd

• Projects are one way to coordinate maintenance, but most editors maintain wikipedia articles without being enlisted by any project. They do so either regularily, by chance or by bot.
• WPPoland has 30+ active and 30+ semi-active members [2], including experienced users like Malik Shabazz, Nihil novi and Darwinek who commented above, but also other people with a high edit count.

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)

Statement by Visor

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)

Statement by Jniech

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).

Statement by M.K.

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)

Statement by Lysy

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)

Statement by Poeticbent

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)

Statement by Jan eissfeldt

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)

Statement by Piotrus

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)

To Rlevse: please let me know if the following elaboration does not address your question.

Shortly: as I noted during the arbitration, I understand that asking for edits on a private foras or responding to such requests should be avoided. As you can see from my edits during the case and this year (that adds up to about half a year of active editing now), I edit in a peaceful manner that isn't raising any issues. I am not sure how I can give you something other than words, since the intended edits have not been done yet, for obvious reasons (and it is a bit hard to demonstrate the lack of controversial edits/issues, see, my proof of that is here: [? lack of complains]). Perhaps the best proof of this is that no editor commenting on this motion so far has been able to present a single problematic post-artbitration start diff. You are welcome to review my recent edits in other en Wiki areas (or projects); I can also list some of the edits I'd like to propose for project member consideration here (but I want to make sure that would be ok with you, I don't want it to be seen as an attempt to evade the restriction). Also, as Malik noted, a list of things that should be done, isn't and that I intend to do is here. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

To Carcharoth: there are no (more) floaters on my userpage. The ones on my talk page should allow access to the toolbox - just scroll down a little bit (and let me know if you still cannot access it). Re 1) yes, they were transwikid by User:Graham87 upon my request last week or so (it is my understanding transwiki is the proper way to preserve edit history for copyright and attribution) from my Polish Wikipedia sandbox (the link to which I send to ArbCom months ago, and this is the same place I developed my Lech Wałesa article from the previous passed motion). 2) I was cleaning my sandbox, which involved moving some content to new pages. The content on the page you are referring to is not new but quite old and was moved from here. 3) Yes, but ON POLISH WIKIPEDIA, on the aforementioned page. It was and is my understanding that this is acceptable, see also my following reply. 4) It is my understanding that the original motion included my en Wikipedia userspace, but not any space on projects other than en Wikipedia. I believe that Coren's motion makes it clear that this motions concerns only the WT:POLAND page.

Seeing as I am answering all of those questions, I do have a quick question of my own. Am I allowed / will I be after this motion to do the following: 1) invite editors by posting on their user talk pages to join the WP:POLAND project 2) answer editors asking me questions like this one that they should direct their questions to WT:POLAND and 3) (after the motion passes) tell them that I've replied to their question there? (As all of those involve edits in a different namespace than this motions concerns, i.e. user talk namespace) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Varsovian

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)

"Can Varsovian provide a single instance where these amendments were used to "game the system"? No? Then don't make empty and false accusations." No I can not. But I can provide examples of using a host of techniques to degrade the project which were used by the members of EEML. Which one would Radek like me to point out first? It would be highly amusing to be lectured by Radek about things which one should not do with WP, if it wasn't so sad that he clearly has learned nothing from the EEML experience. Varsovian ( talk) 11:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Radeksz

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.

Statement by Russavia

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)

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).

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Awaiting further statements before commenting. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• I'll repeat the essence of what I had discussed on my own talk page with Piotrus: I am receptive to allowing him to post to some well defined location about articles that currently fall under his topic ban, and see this as an opportunity for him to return gradually to contribution in that area. The suggestion of using the Wikiproject talk page seems sound to me as well.

  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)

  • I'll post a proposed motion in that direction sometime today. —  Coren  ^(talk) 10:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• Continue to be recused. Shell ^babelfish 06:26, 22 April 2010 UTC)
• Generally agree with Coren here. SirFozzie ( talk) 16:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with Coren as well. KnightLago ( talk) 19:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
• For Piotrus: You were banned totally 3 months (ending a month ago) and topic banned 1 year; only 1/3 of that time has passed. I also recalled how hard you lobbied for those things not to happen. Bans aren't ended early because no one has filled on what the banned person used to do. Bans are ended early because the banned person has shown they've truly learned from what got them banned, realizes what caused it in the first place, and has shown they won't repeat those behaviors. All too often some banned person lobbies for an unban, gets it, and goes right back to their old ways. While I appreciate that some things in the Poland topic aren't getting done, I can also appreciate Risker's concerns. I'm read your statement above, but I need to see more, not just words. Can you elaborate? — Rlevse • Talk • 12:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Piotrus, your user page needs fixing so people can click on your contributions link. I had to access that log a different way because of the floating thing obscuring the sides of the page. Like Risker, I think waiting for the 6-month mark would have been better, but I will support the motion because I see the logic of a gradual return in some areas. Please be crystal-clear as to what you can and can't do, and if you request a further review at the 6-month mark, your activities between now and then will be taken into account. It is entirely possible that some restrictions will remain in place for the whole year of the initial topic ban. Before I support, I have a few questions arising from a brief look-through I did for your contributions over the past 4 months. (1) Can you confirm that the article space edits during the period of the 3-month ban were due to content edited elsewhere and imported here? ( examples) - this appears to be some sort of glitch that needs fixing. (2) Could you explain the purpose of this page created on 26 April 2010? I'm not one to get picky about userspace edits, and this is clearly housekeeping, but can you understand that creating a page that looks like draft notes touching on Eastern European topics (it looks like that from what I've read of the page) might be considered borderline activity in the topic area? (3) Would you intend to continue article draft/notes activity in your userspace in the Eastern European or Polish topic area if this motion passes? (4) On the same subject, which other pages, other than the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland do you see this motion covering (e.g. subpages of the WikiProject?), and do you think the original motion from the case ( here) included your userspace? (This is not a trick question, it is genuinely open to interpretation and better settled now rather than later.) Carcharoth ( talk) 20:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the reply and explanations, Piotrus. The floating stuff on your user talk page (I meant user talk, not user page) does give me a small window to access the sidebar (where your contribs link is), but it is still not ideal. It's not strictly to do with arbitration, but if you could try and see whether that can be fixed it would be good - people shouldn't really have to scroll around and having floating stuff killing other links is not good, though whether it is my set up or the floating thing, I don't know. About this and other stuff to do with the imports, I've reviewed the proxy authorisation and I think it would be best if you asked the three editors listed there to deal with things like this for you, rather than you doing it yourself or making requests yourself (or you could ask for Graham87 to be added to those listed at the motion). It may seem like unneeded layers of communication, but it is important to keep matters like that at arm's length and to work through the three editors named in the motion. On the same topic, moving edit history between namespace and projects is technically correct, but it can cause confusion when people try and work out later what happened (when edits are moved from userspace or other projects to mainspace, it can give the impression that material was present in mainspace on a particular date, when in fact it wasn't - and the transwiki logs don't really seem to be very visible). About the sandbox edits, I see now that it was all housekeeping and moving stuff around - thanks for clearing that up. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
    • To answer your questions, I would say limited posting in user talk space may be OK, but I had envisaged you being more able to do administrative tasks for WikiProject Poland, rather than extensively discussing things. For example, if a deletion discussion was mentioned, you taking part in a thread at WT:POLAND discussing the article would be similar to taking part in the actual deletion discussion. And if people start !voting in deletion discussions saying "per Piotrus on WT:POLAND" that would be bad. I'm going to have to think about this some more. I'm also not happy with the "raise issues and discuss improvements to articles" bit of the motion - such discussions can take place on wikiproject talk pages if the discussion is general and about a group of article, but specific discussions about improving an article should really take place on the article talk page (so others can see it in future). It might be simpler to amend the topic ban to allow editing in all namespaces except article space, and possibly to include a prohibition from participation at AfD, and to trust you to avoid contentious discussions. Either that, or to strictly limit it to the WikiProject pages only (though this doesn't avoid the problem that sometimes discussions take place on WikiProject pages that should really be located somewhere else). I'll wait for more input before voting. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Carc, the reason this was proposed for WT:POLAND as opposed to the talk page is twofold: (a) it makes it centralized, and therefore easily monitorable, and (b) raising issues about an article needing attention on its talkpage is rather futile since it would not be seen by new editors. —  Coren  ^(talk) 11:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Sure, but do you see Piotrus's role following this loosening of the topic ban as simply flagging up issues and then sitting back and letting others deal with them, or do you see his role as including "discuss improvements", which is technically what would happen on the talk page once people had been alerted at the WikiProject? In practice, such discussions tend to overlap between WikiProject talk pages and article talk pages. There may, for instance, be editors who would prefer to post at the article talk page rather than participate in a discussion at WT:POLAND. We shouldn't encourage long discussions about improvements to specific articles when there are other venues better suited to that (article talk pages and deletion discussions, to name just two). I have no objection to WT:POLAND being used to flag up articles that need attention, or for general discussions there about groups of articles within that WikiProject's scope, and I have no objection to Piotrus carrying out administrative tasks on all and any WP:POLAND pages and subpages (including initial postings pointing out problems for others to fix), but I'm wary of discussions getting out of hand and also wary of allowing user talk page postings as if would be better for Piotrus to get others involved in that side of things (delivery notices and welcome notices and invitations to join, etc). For now, I will support, and trust Piotrus to back off in certain areas if things appear to be getting out of hand. We do also need to answer his questions about other namespaces, and be more explicit about other pages and subpages of WP:POLAND. Carcharoth ( talk) 07:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• To answer one of Piotrus's specific questions: my view is that if someone posts to your user talk about something in this topic area, you should avoid initiating a discussion there, and instead direct them to the talk page of WikiProject Poland where you should raise the issue for them if necessary and answer briefly if you have an answer for them. Again, this will encourage others to get involved, so the WikiProject is less reliant on you and others can step in to help out. Carcharoth ( talk) 07:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Motion

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)

Support

1. As a first step towards gradual return to editing. —  Coren  ^(talk) 18:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
2. Given Piotrus' second stmt and the large swell of community support he has, I'm going along with Coren here and am willing to see how this first step goes. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
3. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 04:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
4. Provisional support, pending discussions above regarding other namespaces and other pages and subpages of WikiProject Poland, and urging Piotrus to be wary of engaging in long discussions on the WikiProject talk page that should properly take place elsewhere. If the discussion venue moves, he will have to show restraint and allow the discussions to continue on other pages without him, rather than allowing parallel discussions to develop. Carcharoth ( talk) 07:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
5. Willing to give it a shot. KnightLago ( talk) 15:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
6. Willing to give this a shot and see how it goes forward. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose

1. I'd like to see at least six months pass before moving toward the gradual return to editing (mid-June at earliest), and I note that Piotrus has not commented or made this request, despite being notified of this request for amendment. I am not comfortable approving this change without hearing from him, or his plans for editing and contributing in this area. Risker ( talk) 20:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

   Noting that I have read Piotrus' comments above. My general rule of thumb is that half the sanction period should be served before major changes; that would occur in June. I'm not seeing any reason that would compel me to believe that Piotrus is the only person who is capable to carry out the processes that are the basis of this request; they are tasks that any editor could carry out if s/he felt it was worthwhile. Without a compelling reason to make an exception in this case, I continue to oppose. Nonetheless, as this motion is passing, I will take this opportunity to note that this is a very limiting restriction and that Piotrus may make comments only on the Wikiproject page; it does not lift sanctions in other areas where he has professed an interest. Risker ( talk) 15:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Recuse

1. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Abstain

• Moved to abstain. I completely missed that Piotrus hasn't commented here. What's up with that? KnightLago ( talk) 20:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• See my stmt in the arb section. Holding for now. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Supporting now. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

---

---

Initiated by Per Honor et Gloria  ✍

Case affected

• Franco-Mongol alliance arbitration case ( t) ( ev /  t) ( w /  t) ( pd /  t)
• PHG arbitration case ( t) ( ev /  t) ( w /  t) ( pd /  t)
• Amendment

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

"PHG's topic ban is renewed"

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.

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• Per Honor et Gloria ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Elonka ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Angusmclellan ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (ArbCom-assigned mentor of Per Honor et Gloria)

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• [3]
• [4]

Amendment 1

• Lifting of restrictions or some sort of probation regarding editing in the "Crusades and Mongols" area.

Amendment 2

• Lifting of editing restrictions on "Hellenism and India", which have absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand.

Statement by Per Honor et Gloria

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:

Qualitative edits, no edit-warring

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].

Best possible civility

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].

Well-sourced contributions

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)

Statement by Shell Kinney

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)

Statement by other editor

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

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Nope. Maybe we need to extend this to talk pages too or a total ban. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
• PHG, enough please. There is no persecution, and your repeated appeals are playing against you. —  Coren  ^(talk) 15:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
• Per Rlevse and Coren. The reason talk page editing was left open to you was to be constructive, not disruptive. If you are running into problems on talk pages, please talk to your mentor. Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, you are going about this the wrong way. Work with others to see what you agree on, not what you disagree on, and then work forward from there. Carcharoth ( talk) 10:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Agreed, PHG needs to take a step back here. SirFozzie ( talk) 15:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
• PHG, we are unlikely to reconsider this any time soon. In the mean time, you have access to the talk pages to flag any problems. Cool Hand Luke 14:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

---

---

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:

• NuclearWarfare ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Sandstein ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [35]
• Moreschi ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [36]

Statement by NuclearWarfare

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)

Statement by Sandstein

I agree that ArbCom clarification would be helpful here. I have explained the reasons why I have doubts whether the remedy covers this type of sanction at the AE thread.  Sandstein  16:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Since arbitrators appear to agree that article-level sanctions are or ought to be permitted, I suggest that the decisions providing for discretionary sanctions be amended to that effect, so as to prevent this sort of uncertainty in the future.  Sandstein  07:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• In principle, it's possible to create an article-level 1RR restriction from a literal reading of the provisions for discretionary sanctions, if we assume (a) that the editnotice on the article constitutes a sufficient warning as required by ¶2, and (b) that the sanction being imposed is not the 1RR itself, but rather the 24-hour block, with the violation of the 1RR being merely the necessary evidence that the user "seriously fails to adhere to... normal editorial process". This is obviously not a particularly intuitive reading of the provisions—but, on the other hand, the time that has elapsed without Moreschi's interpretation being challenged suggests that it is one found useful by the community. The real question, I suppose, is whether we should modify the DS provisions to explicitly allow such sanctions; comments on that would be appreciated. Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 03:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Regardless of whether a strict reading of the wording allows it (and I tend to agree with Kirill that it does), I tend to encourage "least-sufficient" restrictions when possible; and a limit placed on the specific article that's the locus of a dispute tends to be considerably less intrusive than limits placed on specific editors — and potentially much less open to accidental unfairness. —  Coren  ^(talk) 12:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with Kirill and Coren; I think the spirit of discretionary sanctions is to allow admins leeway to find the least restrictive way to resolve an issue. Shell ^babelfish 06:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
• I have seen "unofficial" 1RR restrictions on articles("unofficial" in that it was created and enforced by administrators and not the committee) at least partially damper the flames on troublesome areas. I would support making a change either in how ArbCom hands down discretionary sanctions to explicitly allow this kind of option, or indeed modify the policy to allow that. SirFozzie ( talk) 19:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
• The current solution seems to be working fine, and I believe Kirill's interpretation is appropriate under the circumstances. While my preference is generally to attach sanctions to users rather than articles, in some cases an article can be such an attractive nuisance that this is necessary. Exercise of article-based 1-RR sanctions need to be monitored closely; I have seen uninvolved, legitimate editors who arrive at an article to make perfectly normal copy-edit improvements be threatened with blocks (and even, in at least one case, actually blocked) because they didn't read the talk page in advance of editing and weren't aware of the sanction.

  If there are no further questions, I believe this section can be archived in 48 hours. Risker ( talk) 19:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Do you think there would be any benefit in amending the provisions to more explicitly permit such restrictions? Kirill  ^{[talk]  [prof]} 01:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I think this clarification makes that a pointless exercise for existing sanctions, though it would probably be a good idea to alter our "boilerplate" remedy wording to clarify this for future use. —  Coren  ^(talk) 00:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• I think the matter in hand here has been clarified (the 1RR restriction is valid) and that arbitrators can discuss amending the boilerplate the next time this comes up. I agree that 1RR is useful sometimes, but like Risker I am wary of it being misused and used heavy-handedly. We shouldn't encourage overuse of 1RR restrictions, but only use where it is needed (similarly, articles with discretionary sanctions on them should be periodically reviewed to see if the sanctions have served their purpose and how to move forward, as the intention was never to have discretionary sanction in place indefinitely, but more to have them in place until an article of a reasonable standard gets written, which is the true ultimate goal). If an article reaches a good standard (e.g. featured), and is still subject to problems, then a different process is needed there. Carcharoth ( talk) 10:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

---