Jump to content

User:Enkyo2/Sandbox-M

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User:Enkyo2

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Enkyo2 (talk | contribs) at 19:20, 24 September 2011 (→Sandbox 4: consolidate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

Himorogi in Japan are most commonly seen at construction sites, where they stand for a while before actual work begins. The zigzag-shaped paper streamer hanging from the boundary ropes are called shide (紙垂).
July 14,1864.— Letter To Secretary Stanton.
Executive Mansion, Washington, July 14,1864. Hon. Secretary of War.
Sir: Your note of to-day inclosing General Halleck's letter of yesterday relative to offensive remarks supposed to have been made by the Postmaster-General concerning the military officers on duty about Washington is received. The general's letter in substance demands of me that if I approve the remarks I shall strike the names of those officers from the rolls; and that if I do not approve them the Postmaster-General shall be dismissed from the Cabinet
Whether the remarks were really made I do not know, nor do I suppose such knowledge is necessary to a correct response. If they were made, I do not approve them; and yet, under the circumstances, I would not dismiss a member of the Cabinet therefor. I do not consider what may have been hastily said in a moment of vexation at so severe a loss is sufficient ground for so grave a step. Besides this, truth is generally the best vindication against slander. I propose continuing to be myself the judge as to when a member of the Cabinet shall be dismissed. Yours truly, A. Lincoln in Abraham Lincoln: Complete Works, Vol. II, pp. 547-548 (1907).
  • diff 07:32, 26 October 2009 Ecthelion83 m (37,785 bytes) (correction of a typo; mission to Japan during Joseon era had to have been after Joseon's founding in 1392, i.e. not in 1302 as in the earlier version of this page)
Le 1e mois de la 3e année (1392)....
Dans la même année, des ambassadeurs arrivèrent de la Corée pour solliciter le rétablissement des anciennes relations amicales entre les deux pays. Cette circonstance fit beaucoup de plaisir à Yosi mitsou. [In the same year, the ambassadors arrived from Korea to solicit the re-establishment of ancient amicable relations between the two countries. This circumstance was very pleasing to Shogun Ashikaga Yoshimitsu.]
Le 4e mois de la 4e année (1393), l'ancien Daïri Go Yen zu ten o mourut à l'âge de 36 ans. Il fut enterré au temple Zen yu si : Yosi mitsou assista à ses funérailles. [On June 6, 1393, the 26th day of the 4th month of the 4th year of Meitoku Emperor Go-En'yū died. He was enshrined at the imperial tomb called Fukakusa no kita no misasagi (深草北陵) in Fushimi-ku, Kyoto. Shogun Yoshimitsu was present at the funeral ceremonies.]<:ref>Titsingh, Isaac. (1834). Annales des empereurs du japon, p. 320; NengoCalc: 明徳四年四月二十六日 6.6.1393 (Friday)</ref>

Matisse monitoring

Matisse monitoring

Model?

wrong

Archive 26

User talk:Mattisse/Archive 26#Restraint

Please use more restraint when adding to the request for clarification; rehashing old arguments is unhelpful. Bear in mind that whenever you make a post reiterating your position, someone else may be tempted to reply, reiterating their position, and so it continues. Last week, this got out of hand, and you were blocked. Your advisors are prepared to block you again if this recurs.

Thus far, no one has responded, and so you can still reduce or remove your post. In general, I advise you to respond only to new information, and with new information. You should also avoid making any post which may be considered pointy or irritating. I recommend you consult with advisors and await a response before adding to the request for clarification. We can also comment on your behalf. Geometry guy 17:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. I removed my post as you suggested. I do think that avoiding all "FAC editors" on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations is unrealistic. I also think reifying the "plague" list and adding to it is the wrong direction to go. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. Concerning restrictions on interactions with other editors, I would agree that any house should be built on a firm foundation, and it does not help the community to move forwards to build proposals on this unhappy incident. Geometry guy 17:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I've added a short comment (#2) on your position re FA. Let me know here if you wish me to clarify this in any way, or if there is further information that you think could usefully be added. Geometry guy 18:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


User talk:Mattisse/Archive 26#Warning

Mattisse, I have advised you not to make a comment on another Wikipedia editor on any page on Wikipedia. I've become aware of this [1]. If you wish to make a comment about another Wikipedia editor you must first consult via email with one of your advisors, and then wait for a response - no matter how long that response takes.

Be advised that I will block you for an initial 24 hours if I become aware of you making a comment on another Wikipedia editor on any page on Wikipedia without having been given advice by an advisor to make such a comment. And depending on the circumstances this block may be extended until an appropriate action is taken by you to remedy any potential harm by making such a comment.

I will discuss this and other related matters with Geometry guy on his talkpage. --SilkTork 09:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(posted on Carcharoth's talk page) I have apologized to Malleus and explained that I mentioned him only as a byproduct of the links on the FAC contributions coming from his page.[2] He has accepted my apology.[3] Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 17:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Insect projects

Hi, Mattisse. If you can spare a little time from your lengthening to-do list, another editor asked me for some advise and I realised that the job needs more info than I have. Bugboy52.40 has got Insect to GA and is raring to go to work on lower-level insect taxa. Organising the info requires a lot of thought, as there are millions of species, so at least hundreds of genera, and so up the taxonomic tree. Bugboy52.40 asked me if Hide/show boxes would help, and I listed some disadvantages. List-class articles and/or Categories might be worth using. I haven't used these, so I promised to see if I can get some advice. Do you do about List-class articles and/or Categories, or all ways or organising huge numbers of related articles? Do you do know others editors how know much about this type of task? AFAIK you've had no previous contact with Bugboy52.40, and I've enjoyed our (limited) discussions. So I think it would be fine for you to post at Bugboy52.40's Talk page any info, leads, etc. on how to marshal the millions. --Philcha (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Philcha. I don't know anything about organizing biological information. I could probably learn, but I have no ideas of my own on how it should be done. In fact, in doing a couple of flower and coral articles, I found it very confusing and basically left out the tax box. So I am not sure how helpful I can be. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 19:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

)

No, you simply click on the history and then the helpful "Revision History Statistics" tool. Something which you know about and have used in the past.[4]. --Joopercoopers (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I said that I check the recent history of the article, the original FAC page, the talk page etc. in order to fix a spelling error. But I cannot read through all that in detail. How far back should I have gone? How much of an hours time should be spent checking the edit history for names of entitled editors to correct a small error? How far back should editors go? It can take a fair amount of time to check the entire edit history, at least on my computer. Hopefully this arbitration will clarify if, like Risker says, articles are owned and those of us not in an ownership position will not edit those articles. By the way, what is the name of your previous account that gives you entitled status regarding the article? At least you have explained why you seemed to come out of nowhere (I had never heard of you) and involved yourself in my arbitration. —mattisse (Talk) 18:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
As is clearly marked on my user page, I was user:mcginnly - it's a now abandoned account - I never had any interactions with you with that account as far as I'm aware. You really don't need to go digging into talk pages, FAC pages etc. revision history summary tells you quite clearly who the principle editors of an article are. I became aware of you during the advisory council spat. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I have never looked at your user page. But I will try to remember and avoid you and your past account, as apparently you consider yourself "in conflict" with me. I have been told that it is important to read the article talk page. Where is there a concise "revision history" than does not entail going back through several years worth of revisions? You pointed to this[5] above, but going through that takes forever. —mattisse (Talk) 19:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Mattisse, I simply don't believe you don't know how to do this, but nonetheless.......1. on any page click 'history' that's at the top between 'edit this page' and 'watch'. Hopefully this will be a familiar page. This is what the history page of today featured article looks like [6]. A couple of lines above the big 'compare revisions' button is a line that starts with External tools: Revision history statistics. 2. If you click on that link It should be pretty clear who the principle editors are. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Or you can use [7] - simply enter in the name of the article to check. --Joopercoopers (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I did not know about the edit history statistics button. That is much easier than stepping through the article. The problem is that it give raw edit numbers. There are FAs that I have copy edited where I have more edits than the article's owner, but that did not give me ownership. In the article in question, Bishonen only had 19 edits. Is that enough to give ownership? I have more than 19 edits to hundreds and hundreds of articles. —mattisse (Talk) 19:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) And an easy way to check the FAC is to click the direct link to the article's FAC at the top of the talkpage of each article. I don't doubt that you can make constructive edits to all sorts of articles. The question is, is editing some articles the wisest choice at present? Yes, checking is a lot to do, but if you are wanting to help with FAs and are seeking to avoid editors with whom you have been in conflict in the past, (and unnecessary drama all round), then it would likely be the strategic approach. Especially if you are considering doing more than correcting typos and other copyediting. BTW, do you think your comment about Bishonen and article ownership above might be better struck? I think that would be the strategic move too, to be honest. --Slp1 (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Bishonen did not nominate the article for FAC. Now that I read all the text, I see that she was "thanked". I think the concept of "ownership" is unwieldly. You are saying I cannot make a constructive edit to an article just because an editor was "thanked". —mattisse (Talk) 19:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I am not, as you will see from a careful reading of my comment. And the Bishonen FAC credit was a little more than just being thanked, too. But actually that's not my point, which has nothing to do with potential ownership issues (somebody else's problem, which we can't control) and everything to do with being strategic about how we spend our time/energy, in order to get the maximum out of life, the universe and everything. We all have the freedom and the power to engage in articles or not, and I have regularly chosen to unwatchlist pages because the editing environment became unpleasant and a waste of my time. It was my choice, my decision, and my WP time was much more enjoyable and purposeful as a result. (And what do you know, sooner or later, the issues I identified all got solved, because other editors took up things up. Guess what, I'm not indispensable! What a relief!)
All this to say that I am unclear why you would seek restrictions on your edits, instead of taking charge yourself. I think you actually know that it is best to avoid articles by editors with whom past interactions have been difficult. The checking of the FACs, even if just for the nominators was a sign of that. It seems that you above have learned a few more techniques about how to quickly find out who has been involved with what, so that you can make informed decisions about your actions and edits. In my view, it would be most inappropriate for 'involved' editors to complain if you helped with copyediting and minor fix ups. But making posts to those same articles that basically boil down to the fact that you don't think that the article meets FA standards is impolitic, even if true. Let somebody else do it, and keep your dignity, control and freedom to choose to edit or not to edit intact. Oh and I do appreciate that you have modified your comment about Bishonen above. Great decision.--Slp1 (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I seek such a restriction as that would be clear. As it is, I get criticized for making a spelling correction to a FA article, as in Swedish allotment system where I made a spelling correction and was condemned for it. (See criticisms in the current arbitration.) If I am simply restricted from editing all FAC related activities, including edits or spelling corrections to any FA article, that will be a clarification. I will not copy edit or remark on the talk pages of any FA ariticle4, and this will free me from such criticisms that include even making a suggestion on an FA talk page.[8] Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
If that's what you want, why don't you just make the decision to avoid all FA related activities yourself? Take charge. Say so publicly and then really stick to it. Why do you seek external controls and disempowerment instead of taking control yourself and deciding on what you already seem to know is the best course of action? Self-determination followed by self-control and self-monitoring is the way to way to increase not only your own self-respect but also the respect of others. Enough psychobabble.... That's my last.--Slp1 (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I would rather arbcom take the responsibility. That will aid me in turning down requests to edit. I will then refuse to edit any article that is headed for FAC; for example, many GANs are headed that way. I do not want to edit an article that I cannot follow through the process. Many of the GANs I have completed have gone to FAC. If the ban were in place, I would be careful about where the articles I edited were headed. I probably would do no more GANs. I could point to the ban as a reason for turning down edit requests. It would save me from having to constantly re-explain. Plus, it would make it very clear to me what the parameters were. I never would have guessed that correcting spelling errors, for example, would be a reason for an uninvolved editor to bring a complaint to arbcom. Yet that is what happened. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


User talk:Mattisse/Archive 26#Warning

Dear Mattisse - your current trajectory at the Request for Clarification is taking you right in the direction of another block. You overreacted to Jooperscoopers post without consulting with your advisors (as far as I am aware), and are now acting as if you think you can solve Wikipedia's problems. You have to trust Arbitrators to make good decisions. Restrict your comments purely to clarifications of questions by other editors, and stop trying to make a point, or you will be blocked to prevent further disruption of process. Geometry guy 19:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above and I will go a step further. You have previously caused problems in the Request for Clarification with your tendency to escalate matters and have previously been strongly advised to consult with your advisors before making comments on others. So I am warning you not to make ANY further comments, amendments or edits to the Request for Clarification without having first consulted with an advisor. If you do make a comment, amendment or edit to the Request for Clarification without having first consulted with an advisor, then I will block you for 24 hours.
Sometimes all that is needed is a pause for thought. Too much damage is done by people responding too quickly (and emotionally rather than rationally) to rather minor edits. I have asked Joopercoopers for a fuller explanation for the reason for that user's frustration. If Joopercoopers shows good reason for the frustration, then you and I will need to discuss how best to deal with this particular incident and how to prevent it in future. SilkTork *YES! 11:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I fully support the above, and consequently have blocked you for posting to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification without consultation subsequent to this warning. Given that your post was a minor update, I have only blocked you for 12 hours. However, your post was also indicative of a problem: that you believe your latest editing statistics are relevant to the case. If you had consulted advisors, we would have told you to stop making such updates. The arbitration case is about disruption, and avoiding it in the future, not about numbers of edits. Geometry guy 21:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Geometry guy. I fully recognize my ridiculous achievements on Wikipedia are laughable. Didn't think that pointing out my stupid achievements were worthy of a block. But you know best. I think that after diminishing an editor's self esteem, you cannot expect that editor to ever edit again with confidence. I surely will not ever feel able again to believe that I have anything to add to this encyclopedia. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 21:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Which part of "I am warning you not to make ANY further comments, amendments or edits to the Request for Clarification without having first consulted with an advisor. If you do make a comment, amendment or edit to the Request for Clarification without having first consulted with an advisor, then I will block you for 24 hours." did you not understand? I am extending your block to 24 hours per SilkTork's warning. Geometry guy 22:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Just because you have a block does not mean that we do not appreciate your work on wikipedia, its just that we need to prevent another incident exploding, and the only way that seems to be achievable is with a short block. Hopefully being a bit calmer in a day will help. --Salix (talk): 22:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I disagree with this block, as I do with the 'any edit' sanction placed by SilkTork above. Asking Mattisse not to comment further on the joopercoopers incident without advice is appropriate but asking her not to edit at all in the request for clarification is not. However, since I did not weigh in earlier (I did see silktork's note but internalized it as referring only to the jc incident - yes, I should read more carefully), and because I know that discord amongst advisors will probably work against Mattisse, this is meant as a non-actionable comment. (I should add that Mattisse is proud of her accomplishments on wikipedia - do we want to kill that pride?) --RegentsPark 23:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
If the consensus of other advisors is that Mattisse does not need clear and unambiguous guidance from her advisors, and that she should be free to deviate from that guidance accordingly, then I wish such advisors good luck. I am perfectly happy to resign my advisorship if that is the case. Geometry guy 23:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I endorse G Guy's block. I understand Mattisse's frustrations. I hope she is able at the moment to appreciate our own frustrations, and to respect how much time we are devoting to this issue.

I also understand RegentsPark's disagreement regarding the sanction. I would, however, rather err on the side of caution than undo a lot of the good work that has been accomplished recently. The RfC page is a hotspot - it is an arena where things have and can again spark off quite quickly, derailing the progress we have been making. Mattisse is herself aware that there are incidents and arenas which cause her stress and cause her to say and do things that create problems.

To remind Mattisse, I will point out User:Mattisse/Plan#Coping_techiques:

Techniques to reduce stress:

1. Disengage from interactions in which I feel stress or negative emotions before my behavior become problematic.
 2. Consciously copy the editing behavior of good role models such as SilkTork and Geometry guy, especially their methods of disengaging early in a discussion.
 3. Consciously be aware that I do not have to address points registered against me, but can choose to disengage instead.
 4. Refrain from tendency to answer every point made in remarks to me.

...

8. Edit at a lesser volume
 9. Initiate frequent consultation with trusted advisers/mentors to gain perspective and to prevent the build up of stress
 10. Follow the advice of trusted advisers/mentors, rather than overlooking it as I have at times in the past.

And User:Mattisse/Plan#Consequences_for_failure_to_adhere_to_plan:

This proposal is an escalating series of consequences for a failure to adhere to the plan, ending with a return to the jurisdiction of ArbCom:

1. Wikibreaks as suggested by my mentors/advisers
 2. Temporary page or topic bans

Punishments:

1. Short blocks after a warning
 2. Punishment in the form of blocks of escalating length, after warning.


We are carrying out the plan as drafted by Mattisse and approved by ArbCom. SilkTork *YES! 00:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Mattisse/Archive 26#George Eliot

I have reverted your addition of the {{refimprove}} tag as a brief glance at the bibliography shows that the article is in fact thoroughly referenced to reliable sources. Whilst in-line citations may be preferred by some there is no policy mandating them. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I am adding some {{cn}} tags at some of the points that need to be specifically referenced, regardless of general references the reader must comb through at the bottom. General references at the end of the article are not enough to comply with WP:V and WP:RS for specific facts. Large swaths of outsourced material is not ok. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Your posts at User talk:Geometry guy#New pages per Request for clarification

My comments linked to above were made in the context of the conversation on the evolving "Clarification" and were not intended to be reified. The Clarification has not been settled and I do not intend to do anything more than follow their strictures. As stated previously, only statements with definite time frames are to be taken literally. To say that I will not do DYKs in response to a casual comment on my talk page means "for now" as I made clear on the DYK page. (I tend to to dozens of DYKs at once and get burned out and so stop for a while.) As for FAR, FAC, processes, I will abide by the Clarification mandates. FA processes are much less rewarding and massively more draining and more punishing than DYK or GAN so the likelihood for my engagement in the future is dramatically less. (But nothing is permanent. Change on Wikipedia should be welcomed and not forbidden, and evolving statements should not be stored to use as traps.)

I will follow the Clarification outcome regarding FA processes as well as other processes. If the Clarification mandates it, I will also refrain from improving, correcting spelling and grammar, evaluating sources and such for articles that already at FA status. I used to try to check the "Main Page" article for errors but will no longer do that for the time being. I'll let the errors remain for now. I used to be told to comment on the article talk page, but since that seems to enrage FA article owners, I will no longer do so for FA articles for now. To repeat, I will abide by the Clarification outcome. Remarks where I am thinking out loud or sending up trial balloons to my mentors or other should not be used as attempts to trap me in the future. Rather than follow my every trial remark to my mentors or to posters on my talk page, let's all agree to follow the directions of the ArbCom. It is agreed that we are all human here, isn't it? And after all, the cultural atmosphere dominating at the FA processes may change in the future and become more pleasant and rewarding. Anything can happen, so no comment or "thinking out loud" statement that I made or will make should be considered permanent to use as a trap, as all that does is shut down on wiki conversation between me an my advisers, not a goal to be sought. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 16:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to propose that My Plan be modified to take into account what ArbCom currently sees as my problems. Much of the plan concerns behaviors I no longer engage in. Making off-the-cuff comments to posters on my talk page regarding dyk, and thinking out loud to my mentors are not problems the arbs mention as major. If these sorts of complaints are encouraged on the "alerts" page, that page will soon degenerate into the "circus" and/or "train wreck" that the Arbitration and Clarification did because of the volume of trivial, misleading complaints made there. Minor, frivolous complaints, or complaints that target human venting in frustration that are not uncivil or personal attacks, out-of-date complains, voluminous, wordy complaints, or complaints by editors who are not involved in the incident but are merely following my contributions and talk page looking for incidents to report should be discouraged. The complaints should be by stake holders, not the police. Further, as they did in the Arbitration, in the Clarification arbs recognize that much of the complaining about me is frivolous or unwarranted or just plain wrong. e.g.[9] Please, let us concentrate on what is important and recognize that I am fallible but trying. At a time when the subject is whether or not I will be banned from FAC, DYK etc., statements of ventilation by me made in personal contexts should not be help against me. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 20:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have noted the comments made by SandyGeorgia, and further replied to them. Your apparent perception that she was trying to reify your posts does not allow for the alternative interpretation that she was simply drawing attention to failures on your part to stick to your plan. However, there are more substantial issues than these.

  1. Any changes to your plan require the approval of Arbcom. Until such changes are proposed and approved, any failure to stick to your plan could result in a block from one of your advisors at our discretion (in accordance with the currently passing motion 7.1).
  2. You responded to an editor with whom you have been in conflict (SandyGeorgia) without consulting (as far as I am aware) with advisors. Further, your comments suggest an assumption of bad faith. I recognise that you made an effort not to personalize, be confrontational, or escalate, and so am not taking any further action for the time beingin respect of this. However, you should be aware that any posts that might be perceived as responses to editors with whom you have been in conflict may result in a block. Think, or even simply wait, before you respond.
  3. Concerning the DYK quote, I accept that this was an off-the-cuff remark which you partially retracted. Again, this shows a lack of patience on your part: wait and think before you post.
  4. In that thread, I am actually more concerned by your comment that "I see a new group has taken over dyk". I also see above your comment that "the cultural atmosphere dominating at the FA processes may change in the future and become more pleasant and rewarding". Your perception of in-groups has contributed significantly to the position you are in now. It is a harmful perception.
  5. Wikipedia is not the place to vent your frustrations. It is an encyclopedia.

To end on a positive note, I can see you are trying, and am glad you recognise your own fallibility and are showing a greater willingness to tolerate the fallibility of others. Geometry guy 22:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. Thanks for your additional post on my talk page. I have rephrased the above. Geometry guy 22:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Mattisse/Archive 26#Arbitration Motion's regarding Mattisse

The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion amending Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse The full voting and discussion for the original clarification and motions can be found here

  • Mattisse (talk · contribs) is placed under a conduct probation for one year. Any of Mattisse's mentors may impose sanctions on his or her own discretion if, despite being warned or otherwise advised, Mattisse repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to any expected standards of behavior and decorum.
  • Editors are reminded that baiting, antagonistic comments, and other such behavior is disruptive. Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to handle such circumstances as they would any other disruptive conduct, including appropriate warnings and advice, short page bans, as well as escalating blocks for repeated or egregious misconduct.
  • Editing of the the page User:Mattisse/Monitoring, as well as its talk page and any other pages created for the purposes of carrying out the mentorship, shall be limited to Mattisse (talk · contribs) and her mentors for the duration of the mentorship. Users wishing to comment upon any aspect of the mentorship may contact the mentors directly, or on a subpage designated for such a purpose. Modified by next two motions.
  • "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Alerts" will be set up for the community to report issues to the mentors.
  • User:Mattisse/Monitoring is moved to "Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Monitoring".

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon talk|WikimediaUK 01:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Original Annoucement

User talk:Mattisse/Archive 26#Arbcom motion

Mattisse, now that arbcom has done with the clarification and we know where we all stand, I do suggest that you ask before you post anything that remotely comments on an editor. And, please, please don't respond to anything without first getting some input from one of your mentors. You are at an immense disadvantage (possibly for good reasons) in any discussion and you should recognize that if you get into a back and forth with anyone you are almost certainly going to end up with a block. Which, I suspect, cannot be nice at all. There is plenty of stuff to do on wikipedia, and moving on is always a good idea!--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree with you. I will not be posting on wikipedia regarding anything significant and will try to reduce my posts to near zero. Any posts I do make will be accompanied with profuse apologies. This is my opinion only and based on my experience only. I apologize in advance if it offends anyone or is taken as a personal attack by anyone. It is not meant as such and is, as I say based on my personal observations and experience only. Warmest regards, Mattisse
"Any posts I do make will be accompanied with profuse apologies." That would not be helpful. Neutral posts without any attached baggage are what people are looking for. We are here to build the encyclopedia - the talkpages are here to assist in communication about the encyclopedia - as such please reduce comment about yourself and others as much as possible. While we are permitted to make casual and chatty comments, especially on our own talkpages, this should be kept to a minimum, especially if there have been issues about the ability of a person to communicate without conflict. Any frustrations you feel about being under scrutiny, and whatever unfairness you feel should be kept off Wikipedia - even off your own talkpage. This is not the place to be airing your frustrations and hurts. Share your personal anxieties and pressures with real life friends, or via email with your advisors, but not here on Wikipedia. SilkTork *YES! 11:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


User talk:Mattisse/Archive 26#Re: Removing citation tags

See User_talk:Cody574#Removing_citation_tags. Cody574 00:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

When you did this:[10] you removed the "citation needed" tag. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry, I meant to revert something else. You can blame Lupin for making his anti-vandal tool all bunched together and messy. Cody574 01:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the apology. The tools can be confusing. It should not be too difficult to find references for the material you added. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 01:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


User talk:Mattisse/Archive 26#ARA Uruguay

I was wondering how to progress the movement, since so much time has been spent going around that I don't want the clock to run out. I think the article is important due to the rich history of events in which this ship participated.

Thanks, Leonard G. (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

AGF means that I accepted the Spanish language source for the hook in good faith. Since my Spanish is faulty, I will trust that you are translating the source material correctly. So, all is good! Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 23:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Leonard G. (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Mattisse/Archive 26#Alexander VI

Hi. I want to add my translation of a humanist′s poem about Pope Alexander VI to the article about the Pope (together with the Latin original). Can you look at my English attempt? Is it correct? Thank you.

Who sacrificed quiet to hatred, with a warrior heart,
who did not stop at quarrels, struggles and slaughters,
is lying here in the coffin for all people to rejoice,
thy supreme pontiff Alexander, oh, capital Rome.
Thou, prelates of Erebus and Heaven, close thy doors
and prohibit the Soul from entering thy sites.
He would uproar the peace of Styx and disturb Avernus,
and vanquish the Saints, if he enters the sphere of stars.

--Aloysius (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

  • (Aside to mattisse) Does this mean you are an expert in Latin? (Excuse the interruption, just making a mental note for future reference) Proofreader77 (interact) 19:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict) I had to rewrite this as I lost it in an edit conflict. Nearest I can remember I said that I am not an expert in this, but the only part that does not work in English is "He would uproar the peace of Styx" —mattisse (Talk) 19:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay. So I suggested "He would upset the peace" or "he would disrupt the peace" or some wording like that. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 19:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • That's okay. It is really rare to lose the edit entirely. Usually it is retrievable. Don't know what happened there. Some kink in the wiki workings. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 19:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


Archive 27

User talk:Mattisse#Collaborative spirit on 2010 Haiti earthquake

"... impressed by the collaborative work on this article about an unfolding disaster. However, such articles also generate stresses and frustrations. While this edit raises issues about selective use of source material, it isn't phrased in a way conducive to collaboration. In particular, the suggestion of article ownership in the last sentence is inappropriate and unhelpful in this context .... --Geometry guy 21:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"It isn't wrong to become involved in articles, as long as you are able to step back to see the encyclopedic perspective, and avoid personalizing disagreements. You've contributed ... primarily with the needs of the encyclopedia in mind" .... --Geometry guy 22:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Mattisse#leading to ban

"Mattisse, .... Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater (not perfect in this situation, but a useful metaphor anyway!)." --RegentsPark 23:44, 17 January 2010

Geometry guy reminded me how dangerous it was to comment. I am not reacting out of anger but rather out of fear. I have struck all comments. Hopefully this will put this incident to rest and it will not need to be spoken of again. I will avoid any future active involvement in articles. I am trying not to make any substantive contributions. I having no longer been doing reviews of any sort, nor participating in FAC, FAR or GAN reviews. I have not been copy editing articles as I did in the past. I did participate in DYK but I will avoid that for now. It was a mistake on my part, a lapse from my policy to get involved. Regretfully, —mattisse (Talk) 23:48, 17 January 2010
<IMPORTANT>It is not dangerous to comment; problems arise when you act in haste .... time to think about the matter with more perspective .... --Geometry guy 00:11, 18 January 2010
I guess I have no choice in anything, not even in withdrawing comments. I will try to be very careful not to get involved in anything else that may bring attention in the future. I am avoiding any substantive contributions and will continue to do so, so as not to bring attention. This incident was a horrible mistake. I deeply regret that I contributed so much to the article. I learn from this to avoid contributions. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"You always have many choices, including the choice to wait. Geometry guy 00:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Mattisse#please explain

"... her original comment was inappropriate, and that her later actions and comments were over-reaction, and that this is the danger zone for her. When angry and frustrated like this, the most appropriate solution is to log off and cool down. Easier said than done - but it has to be done .... --SilkTork 16:09, 18 January 2010

User:Mattisse#Reply

"... accusations of article ownership are personalizations of disagreements .... Your comment about a lead editor having a view which you should let prevail is contrary to this spirit, and wishing to withdraw comments and contributions in protest or frustration is inappropriate behaviour. Good conduct aims for collaboration, mutual understanding, and disengagement from disputes; it does not include posts of a rhetorical nature which aim to be "effective" at seeking attention or winning an argument .... --Geometry guy 16:06, 19 January 2010

"... highlighted above a paragraph that is particularly important. It is better to try to understand this than whether there are rules for striking comments, and what they might be. One of the foundational principles of Wikipedia is Pillar Five and WP:IAR: rules are simply a tool to help editors improve the encyclopedia." --Geometry guy 20:58, 20 January 2010==

2+2

John Carter was among the first I contacted in my search for ArbCom-mandated mentors. Curiously, he did not explain his role in the mentorship of Mattisse. Instead, he casually mentioned that a mentorship group had been formed to work with her; and the passing hint allowed me to "discover" the names of her mentors on my own. John Carter has been off-wiki since December 24, which means that I've been unable to acknowledge his elegant gambit. As an alternative, I've decided share my impressions with one of his mentor peers. If I'm temporarily unable to be direct, I recognize a value in being indirect.

In an attempt to profit from your mentorship modeling experiences, I've begun to investigate the record at User talk:Mattisse. I offer some of comments.

A. Last week, you will recall commenting at User:Mattisse#leading to ban, "Mattisse, .... Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater (not perfect in this situation, but a useful metaphor anyway!)."

May I suggest an arguably helpful link to Throw out the baby with the bath water? The article explains the early 16th century derivation of a contemporary English idiomatic expression; and the usage over centuries is sketched briefly. Idioms are potentially difficult in real life; but in our wiki-context, a novel kind of wiki-linked use allows the phrase to take on a specificity and focus not available in conversational settings. The allusory potency of the phrase is not diminished, rather it is enhanced.

The article's edit history will show that I started this article last October. I developed it as an exercise to help me work through my thinking about one of the core issues I expected to encounter in mentorship. Among many other lessons learned the hard way, I've found that it is always prudent to try to plan several steps in advance; and this kind of research/writing-task is a device which sometimes works for me.

The balanced concepts of essential vs. inessential, core vs. ancillary, etc. are examined from another perspective in a caveat a friend found in a newspaper chess column:

"The close-at-hand problem is always the one ... [to] take care of before anything else, but the solution should include what you are committing yourself to over the long haul.

"It is altogether too easy to let the burden of the immediate problem obliterate other considerations from your thinking and to jump at what promises to be a quick fix. What often happens is that you have not achieved a long-range success but only converted one difficulty into another perhaps less obvious but no less onerous one." -- Robert Byrne. "Pastimes; Chess," New York Times. December 24, 1989.

My initial review of User talk:Mattisse suggests that in trying to work with her mentors, Mattisse does not appear to have "converted one difficulty into another perhaps less obvious but no less onerous one." In different words, I found myself trying to parse the specifics of recent incidents which can be construed as exercises which require discerning differences between the "baby" which needs to be cherished and the "bath water" which can be discarded.
B. In early December, you rhetorically asked at User talk:Mattisse/Archive 26#Warning, "I should add that Mattisse is proud of her accomplishments on wikipedia - do we want to kill that pride?" The answer is implicit, of course – no. Please permit me to suggest a quotation which arguably expresses your point while extending the ambit of encompassing aspirations:
"A mentor is someone who allows you to see the hope inside yourself." – Oprah Winfrey
In my view, Mattisse's pride and accomplishments are married; and it is seemly that this wholesome marriage resists divorce.

I hadn't expected a review of User talk:Mattisse to inspire this kind of free association; but there you have it.


In an outside the box search for volunteers to participate in a mentorship committee for me, I reached out to you. I was grateful that you offered to "keep one eye directed toward me"; but perhaps I might suggest a better idea?

Inevitably, wiki-mentorship involves reinventing the wheel; but some aspects of your experience as a wiki-mentor will not be unique. In that narrow wiki-context, you are an expert. I wonder if you might be willing to make yourself available to those who have tentatively agreed to take on the roles of "official" mentor or unofficial advisor?


Mentors list

I have the following list of editors who have provided significant interaction with me regarding advising/mentoring me. They have productively advised me in the past. I trust their judgment and I trust that they have Wikipedia's best interest at heart. I believe that it should be my responsibility to solicit and obtain advice in the manner most comfortable to me and to each adviser. Salix alba - admin John Carter - admin Philcha Geometry guy - admin SilkTork - admin Fowler&fowler RegentsPark - admin Ling.Nut Monitoring

I will start a dedicated page User:Mattisse/Monitoring upon which my mentors/advisers may discuss my behavior and their advice, as well as any measure that may need to be taken to help me cope. Submission to Arbcom

Per directions of NewYorkbrad, this plan was emailed to each arbcom member. I also posted it on the clerks notice board. It is also linked to the Workshop page. As far as I know, I have notified all arbcom member of this plan. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


Mentorship subpage

Mentorship subpage
=Arbitrtion Committee==

ArbCom remedies in Tang Dynasty imply a multi-step process, e.g., restrictions "... to begin when a mentor is located and approved by the Committee." No process was established for obtaining ArbCom's imprimatur.

In the absence of more specific guidance, User:Mattisse/Plan suggested a plausibly relevant model. Tenmei's plan and list of proposed mentors was e-mailed to each ArbCom member.

Protocols for confirming ArbCom's approval of each mentor will need to encompass notifying each; and informing Tenmei will be essential as well.

Active arbitrators
  1. Cool Hand Luke (talk · contribs · email) (Frank Bednarz, User.CoolHandLuke@gmail.com)
  2. FayssalF (talk · contribs · email) (Fayssal Fertakh, szvest@gmail.com)
  3. Fritzpoll (talk · contribs · email)
  4. Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs · email)
  5. KnightLago (talk · contribs · email)
  6. Mailer diablo (talk · contribs · email) (Kenneth Kua, kenneth@planetkh.com)
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · email) (Ira Brad Matetsky, newyorkbrad@gmail.com)
  8. Risker (talk · contribs · email)
  9. Rlevse (talk · contribs · email)
  10. Roger Davies (talk · contribs · email) (roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com)
  11. Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · email)
  12. SirFozzie (talk · contribs · email)
  13. Steve Smith (talk · contribs · email)
Inactive arbitrators
  1. Carcharoth (talk · contribs · email) (carcharothwp@gmail.com)
  2. Coren (talk · contribs · email) (Marc-André Pelletier, marc@uberbox.org)
  3. Hersfold (talk · contribs · email)
  4. Wizardman (talk · contribs · email) (wizardmanwiki@gmail.com)
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Mentorship Committee

Plan

The explicit core of complaints consists of one item only: Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read.
[11 words]

Optimistic predictions about Tenmei's ability and willingness to make mentorship successful arise from the range and quality of those who have agreed to be presented for ArbCom approval.
[28/39 words]

This small group, plus an evolving vocabulary, plus tactical planning and tactical methods for avoiding complicated subjects form the crux of a strategy for the near future.
[25/54 words]

Pre-planning encompassed:
[54/56 words]

(1) An outside-the-box search for prospective wiki-"mentors" and advisors involved (a) rejecting any sort of censor-like/monitor-like/probation officer-like straw men; (b) accepting and valuing meaningful help and coaching.
[24/80 words]
(2) First steps involved contriving (a) a committee structure; (b) venues for working together, including an "Alerts" or monitoring sub-page; and (c) vocabulary conventions for communicating within the group, including shared terminology and catch-phrases like metacognition, anti-pattern, and "soft wiki-pacifism".
[35/115 words]
(3) Learning from failure was inevitable and repeated.
[7/122 words]

This overview was developed in an ArbCom-imposed limbo-like/purgatory-like context. This summary of modeling and simulation is the result of two-months work. Further assessments on the basis of off-wiki projections have limited utility.
[30 words/152 words]

This plan will be tweaked on a periodic and an episodic basis in response to on-wiki experiences.
[17 words/169 words]

Additional subjects not fully investigated include contrition and/or regret (emotion)/regret (decision theory)/expression of regret. Long-term objectives are not yet identified.
[16 words/185 words]


Active mentors
  1. John Carter
  2. Jmh649
  3. Kraftlos
  4. Leujohn
  5. McDoobAU93
  6. Robofish
  7. Taivo

Question

I wonder if it would be a good imitate/emuilate/idea to copy this contructive/defensive tactic? --Tenmei (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist has posted the following at the top of his/her talk page:
I have a simple two to three step process for refactoring comments that seem to anyone to be uncivil:
  • You need to provide a specific reference to specific wording. A diff or link is a good start, but you need to quote exactly what part of the wording is uncivil and why. Is it an adjective? A particular phrase? etc. (For example, "I thought it was uncivil when you said 'there are dozens of isochron methods' here.")
  • You will need to be abundantly clear as to how the exact wording is perceived by you to be uncivil towards you personally and why you consider it to be uncivil. (For example, "When I was being persecuted in the Maltese riots of 1988, the favored phrase of the police as they shot us with their water cannons was 'There are dozens of isochron methods!' The phrase still haunts me to this day.")
  • Provide an alternative wording that provides the same information without the perceived incivility. This is not a necessary step, but would be helpful. (For example, "Instead of saying that phrase, could you just say 'Scientists use a large number of radioisotope ratios to allow them to date rocks.'? This phrase does not carry the loaded baggage that I associate with the wording you wrote but seems to have the same meaning.")
  • Once you provide at least information relating to the first two steps, I will usually immediately refactor. The third step is optional.

Epistemic community

Bob Reinalda (1998), p. 184, p. 184, at Google Books citing Peter Haas (1992),

"An epistemic community is a network of people from a variety of disciplines and backgrounds.
"They have
(1) a shared set of normative and principled beliefs, which provide a value-based rationale for the social action of community members;
(2) shared causal beliefs, which are derived from their analysis of practices leading or contributing to a central set of problems in their domain and which then serve as the basis for elucidating the multiple linkages between posible policy actions and desired outcomes;
(3) shared notions of validity — that is, intersubjective, internally defined criteria for weighing and validating knowledge in the domain of their expertise; and
(4) a common policy enterprise -- that is, a set of common practices associated with a set of problems to which their professional competence is directed, presumably out of the conviction that human welfare will be enhanced as a consequence.
References
Shortcut

The difference between the right word and the almost right word is
the difference between lightning and a lightning bug. – Mark Twain

"... a mentor is like a coach mostly" -- User talk:FloNight#Tenmei's mentor
Censor Librorum ––> Nihil obstat ––> Imprimi potest ––> Imprimatur

Amendments to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty

→ see also: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty


Outside-the-box search for mentors
NOTE:
These threads are not archived, merely collapsed to that it doesn't overwhelm the talk page.
In a sense, each of the following remains open-ended, not "closed" -- and this topic is still ripe for further development?

Decline

A: Acalamari

Decline. I've responded to your E-mail, too. Acalamari 17:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I sent an e-mail detailing a plan which incorporates flexible time commitments. --Tenmei (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

B: Buckshot06

Decline. E-mail answered. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was talking about. If you wish to be better understood, you would have been better to just include the quote, and nothing else - all that introductory writing confuses people sometimes. Try and make your style simple and to the point, not flowery. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Ca: Daniel Case

Decline. I've got your email, but I haven't reviewed it yet. I will let you know what I think when I have. Daniel Case (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I sent an e-mail detailing a plan which incorporates flexible time commitments. --Tenmei (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Cl: CliffC

Thanks for assuming I would be a suitable mentor. Unfortunately, I do not currently have the time available to do it properly. Thank you for asking. Regards, CliffC (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Co: Cortina2

Decline. Thank you for your patience as I took the last couple of days to study and understand the situation. And thanks also for requesting my participation. However, I am still quite new to the Wiki system, and as such, must humbly decline your offer as I believe my beginner's ignorance may be a hinderance for you. Cortina2 (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

D: Dlohcierekim


Decline. Thanks for your note. I'd love to, but I'm pretty completly retired right now. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 23:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

F: Tony Fox

Decline. Hey there. I did receive your email; while I appreciate the opportunity, I don't feel that I've got the time to devote to such an endeavour right now. Good luck with it, however. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

G: GJC

Decline. Having read and considered the issues with which your mentorship would be concerned, I can't in good conscience accept. You stated that your main issues for improvement are the "TL;DR" issue, and the issue of overly-florid language, impenetrable sentence structure, and similar stylistic concerns; the problem with me mentoring you (or anyone!) in an effort to overcome these issues is that I am cursed with the same qualities in my writing. and continue to struggle with these and other stylistic challenges myself. Metaphorically speaking, I would be leading you through the darkness with no flashlight, while myself wearing dark glasses. That would be neither fair nor helpful to you--to say nothing of your other mentors! I do thank you, though, for considering me, and also for posting a link to my note to CoM...I was quite humbled indeed to see myself quoted! Good luck in your mentorship! GJC 01:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I note the modesty of your caveat, but I am undismayed. My knee-jerk response is to ask you to think again? Please allow an opportunity to develop. I need to engage a tentative discourse which allows a more nuanced overview to emerge. Please consider contacting me by e-mail. I would hope for the opportunity to persuade you to agree to participate in a mentorship group, at least during the initial start-up phase. --Tenmei (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Mentorship
Tenmei, I'm very sorry, but I am not able to assist you in this mentorship process. I apologize for any lack of clarity on my part, but I will not be changing my mind about this; my current IRL situation does not permit me to spend the kind of time here that even a "partial" mentorship would require. My apologies... GJC 19:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Kd: Kbdank71

Decline. I'm sorry, but I will have to decline. Good luck, though. --Kbdank71 20:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Ku: Кusma

Decline. I also received your email. Unfortunately my real life does not allow me to make the necessary time commitment for a meaningful mentorship agreement. (You should have asked two years ago...). This is doubly unfortunate as I would love to know more about the history of East Asia (I know a little about the Republic of China, not much else). —Кузьма討論 15:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

M: Montanabw

Decline.

Hi Tenmei, I got your message and, unfortunately, I must also decline your very kind and flattering offer that I be one of your mentors. I simply do not have the time, plus, given my own edit history, I tend to get kind of pissed off rather fast, then throw fat on the fire more than calm things down, so if you need some pats and the back and encouragement to keep on editing and to be dedicated to high quality work, I'm sure willing to encourage you there, but I'd best stay out of mentoring. With a friend like me, you might not need any enemies! (grin) It does look like you are getting a small troop together, so good luck! Montanabw(talk) 22:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ph: Philosopher

Decline. Ditto Rschen774 above, I've been a little pre-occupied with RL and can't commit to as involved a project as mentoring at the moment. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Pi: Pigsonthewing

Decline. Thank you for thinking of me, but the amount of time I can spend on Wikipedia is limited, so I won't be able to contribute as you request. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ra: Raymondwinn

Decline. Thank you for today's invitation to participate as a mentor in your editing efforts. I must decline, with much apology, since it appears that your scholarship efforts are considerable and should be encouraged. I base my demurral on my extremely limited understanding of the many regulations and rules of the Wikipedia universe, and not on your particular situation. Raymondwinn (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Rsc: Rschen7754

Decline. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to help out - I'm barely managing my school load, and my Wikipedia editing is suffering as a result. --Rschen7754 07:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Rsp: Rspeer

Decline. I looked into your request, and I think that it's simply too far outside of my expertise for me to be helpful. I'm sorry. rspεεr (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I sent an e-mail detailing a plan which (a) clarifies the "expertise" issue and (b) incorporates flexible time commitments. --Tenmei (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

S: SMcCandlish

Sorry, but I've had only very tangential contact with that anything you've been involved with, and your case looks like a tar baby to me. You are spending way too much time coming up with allegedly clever little diagrams about mentorship and thinking outside boxes, and creating user sub pages about mentorship, and editing essays about mentorship, and so on, when the purpose of the ArbCom requiring you to have a mentor or be indefinitely blocked is for you to listen and follow some guidance on how to be a constructive editor here. Becoming absorbed with the process of finding and having mentor is inimical to that. Looks like several have accepted already anyway, so best of luck. Try to remember that this is encyclopedia-bulding project, not an experiment in virtual governance (not intentionally, anyway). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 19:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you is my knee-jerk response, but the unexpected reaction needs a little explanation. These comments are frustrating, on-point, ironic -- and also welcome.
SMcCandlish identifies the very things which I complained about in e-mails last week. I don't know about the tar baby, but the rest of his critical commentary resonated as comforting, reassuring and supportive.
A little background may help. In the the past year or so, ArbCom and others have vastly altered the fundamentals of mentorship without adequately anticipating the unintended consequences. The remedies ArbCom crafted for Mattisse illustrate a case-in-point, serving to explain why I'm investigating outside the box alternatives.
SMcCandlish's examples of misplaced activity include creating subpages -- see here; but this is not a novelty. Rather, it mirrors an approach which seems to be proving useful in other cases -- see here. He questions the efficacy of time invested in essay writing, but these exercises were proposed by tentative co-mentors whose ideas I am encouraged to make my own. This was informed by a similar strategy which seems to have worked well enough for another mentorship group -- see here. This writing has helped re-focus and refine my thinking about what I need, and yet, I felt impatient for the very same reasons he articulates crisply.
In this instance, SMcCandlish misconstrues something like blame for what was in fact cooperation. The irony is bitter, but not wrong. I reject the tone, but I accept the accuracy and timeliness of words I could have written myself. What I need now is a kind of alchemy which converts it all into something better? --Tenmei (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I may have misinterpreted some of what I was seeing. If the essay stuff has been helpful for you, then that is a good thing. I have a great many "fish to fry" as the saying goes, and you already have a number of mentoring volunteers so I think you'll be fine. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 03:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Relevant links: Reinventing the wheel?

The O: The Ogre

Decline. I'm sorry Tenmei, but I do not have the time or even the aptitude for mentorship. Hope all goes weel for you. The Ogre (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The T: The Thing That Should Not Be

Decline. I am afraid I must decline your offer. I am not exactly experienced with mentorship, so I would not be the best person to help. Thanks for asking anyways. Happy holidays! The Thing Merry Christmas 00:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

"Public" mentor

John Carter

Yes Noting that at least one party, myself, has agreed to try to being a mentor, although I personally would be happiest if there were others involved as well. John Carter (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Has not edited since 25th December last year - I am not sure why people dont look at his contribs and realise he is not around - unless he has reincarnated into a sock or something - otherwise why leave a message there? SatuSuro 08:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
My message anticipates his eventual return to active editing. --Tenmei (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
A relatively private and obscure message to me at the time was a loss of a laptop was causing him problems - maybe the break has helped him see the light :) SatuSuro 03:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

McDoobAU93

Yes. I would be willing to consider your request, pending review of the situation that brought you to this point. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

How can I be of assistance? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I accept your request. Let me know what I can do to help out. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for response

Greetings ... I took a look at what you posted on PMDrive's talk page, and I can easily suggest one thing: get to the point. All the quotes and imagery are rather nice, but at the same time if people are going to help you, they need to know specifically and succinctly what you need help with. If it's buried within tables, duplicate conversations and the like, they may assume the wrong information and give you an inappropriate answer ... that is, if they answer at all. I have this same problem sometimes--that is, wanting to give every bit of information I can. Instead, I am learning to give people what they ask for. If they want more info, they'll ask for it. Admittedly, that might take a bit longer than desired, but it would be better than being flooded with information that must be sorted through. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you know This Is the House That Jack Built? This is one of many children's stories I wondered about when I was a child.

At User talk:Child of Midnight#Oy, I construed the subject to be something about "core policies" and how Wikipedia really works. In this thread, the American idiomatic language was deliberately obscure; but one part captured my attention:

"... Here is a fact. Here is where it says this is a fact. Here is where it clarifies that the guy who says this is a fact is not a crank. This is the dog that chased the cat that worried the rat that ate the corn that lay in the house that Fact built ...." -- User:Gladys j cortez a/k/a GJC 21:58, 13 February 2010 (diff)
Perhaps it's noteworthy that the "coatrack" of complaints which were gathered together in Tang Dynasty mirrored this run-on pattern. I thought that a cumulative tale is conventional in our venue because "this is the house that wiki built"?
I'm reminded of an aphorism of Einstein: "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." --Tenmei (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Robofish

Yes. Hi, and thanks for your invitation to be one of your mentors. I'm not sure how helpful I could be though, as I'm not an admin and have no experience of mentoring anyone. You should probably have someone with more relevant experience. Have you tried asking on Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User or Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab? If you can't find anyone better, I'm willing to give it a try, but I think you'd have more success looking elsewhere. Good luck! Robofish (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you -- I have cast a wide net. The earliest to volunteer, John Carter, came from the list posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject User Rehab; and others are considering what to do. --Tenmei (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I replied to your email. Robofish (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)f

Taivo

Yes. See my response to your request on my Talk page. (Taivo (talk) 04:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC))

"Non-public" mentor

PMDrive1061

Non-public mentor.

Sure!

Count me in; sounds like fun. Vandal-whacking can get really frsutrating, I'm out of ideas for new articles and I'd like a new challenge. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem.  :)--PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I got your e-mail, but I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Do you wish help from a mentor? If so, I'd be most happy to help you. Just let me know on my talk page; I don't check that particular e-mail account very often at all. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I'll take a look, but I've decided to take a break from the project for a little while. I was just leaving word on my user page and talk page when you wrote. Not to worry; I'll get back to you soon. Best, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Ten. As much as I'd like to be able to help, I fear I know little to nothng about the subject. In reviewing your contributions, I'd say that you're doing a good job of editing on your own and that you aren't in any real need of mentoring. I am, of course, more than ready to jump in to help you if you have any questions or concerns. Remember to be bold and have fun! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

PMDrive1061 -- You hit several nails on the head.

  • Yes -- I have done a very good job of editing .... My edit count is 40,000+; and I have encountered only a handful of of enquiries about my scrupulously sourced contributions.
  • Yes -- I am in need of "jumping in" ....
  • Yes -- I have questions and concerns ....
When the only tool available is a hammer, it is easy to see everything as a kind of nail. I appreciate the values of perseverance and application; and I continue to search for alternatives. The best tool for the job is not always a hammer; and not everything can be construed as a nail.
  • No -- this is not the time to be bold ....
  • No -- this is not fun.
Mentorship encompasses unexpected stumbling blocks. I need mentors to help me avoid barking up the wrong tree. --Tenmei (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really a "no."

As I pointed out, you're doing a great job of simply rolling up your sleeves and getting dirty. Never, ever be afraid to make a change. Any good faith edit is welcomed. If it gets reverted for whatever reason, just keep on keepin' on and don't let it worry you. Productive editors are a precious commodity; far too many accounts I find on the new user log wind up being vandalism-only. I'm as close as my talk page. You feel free to ask me anything if you have a worry or concern. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you're asking here

The situation you've outlined on my talk page is a bit out of my experience to say the least. I'm genuinely puzzled as to what you are asking of me. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Unofficial advice only

Greg Bard

Unofficial advice only. If you have any specific questions, I would be glad to help. However, I don't know if I would be the greatest mentor. I don't have an opportunity to be online regularly. However I hope I can help you with including the "fundamentals". I have discovered that there is a prevailing attitude among some that philosophy and intellectual foundations of things are completely a waste of ones and zeros. I find that various editors (including a few serious dedicated trouble makers, but also a lot of random innocent newcomers) delete a lot of valuable material because they "don't see the need" or just nitpick things to death -- things which they don't even seem to understand. My experience is mostly in the logic department and the problems are mostly with mathematicians.

The whole "concepts and theories" effort came about because I was working on putting articles into appropriate categories, and I discovered that when I organized the philosophy department into its existing categories (philosophers, literature, etcetera) that what was left over were a lot of "isms". I am quite interested in "isms" in general and I proceeded to try to find a good way to account for them all. Unfortunately, there are a lot of different ways to categorize them (schools of thought, views, ideologies etcetera etcetera). Since I am focused on logic, I realized that what they ALL have in common is that they can be expressed as "theories". (I.e. a set of true sentences T:{t1,t2,t3, ...} ) So I set up the whole "philosophical theories" category. Unfortunately, there is resistance to that plan also. For some articles some people insist that it isn't a "theory" because they don't really understand what a theory is --(I'm sure they are mislead by the whole "evolution is just a theory " crowd. Those people are just confused). Anyway, its still mostly working out fine.

After I managed to get almost all theories accounted for, I discovered that what was left were a lot of articles about abstract concepts (hard to categorize otherwise in many cases.) So I started working on concepts too.

I am not convinced that mentorship is really very important. If you have any troubles, let me know, or post to the philosophy discussion. The best advise I can give is to be patient, and remember that you won't always be able to get what you want, even if it's true and supported by sources. This place is very political. You have to compromise, and reformulate things (very often to please people you think do not understand the material.) Be well, I invite your correspondence.Greg Bard (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this thoughtful response. Your comments are a welcome. They represent a constructive step towards a sort of collegiality which develops slowly. --Tenmei (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Coppertwig

Unofficial advice only.

I'm considering perhaps offering to be involved as a non-admin co-mentor; however, I've been editing Wikipedia less often recently and may be available only sporadically, so I would have at most a minor role. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC) (replaced with the message below)
OK, I'm willing to be a co-mentor, although with limited availability. I believe you have a lot to contribute to Wikipedia, Tenmei; thank you for your extensive contributions, especially in creating articles and in contributing citations. I believe I can provide helpful guidance in a number of areas, including:
  • Effective expressive communication: purposefulness, clarity, conciseness.
  • Effective receptive communication: AGF, understanding others' POV, understanding what others are trying to say.
  • Application of core policies WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV.
Taivo has also volunteered to be part of the mentorship committee here. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Tenmei. I've decided to withdraw my offer to be a co-mentor. You can still feel free to ask me for advice on an informal basis, remembering that I'm not always available to reply swiftly. I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused by changing my mind, and wish you good luck. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist

Unoffical advice only. I'm not sure that I would be the best of mentors for you. I have no problem engaging as an informal helpmate if you want to bounce ideas off me about how to phrase responses or contributions, but as I understand the arbcomm restriction on you, the mentorship they want you to set-up is intended to be probationary or even disciplinary. I do not think I can participate in that kind of arrangement. We're all just Wikipedians trying our best to do one thing or another. Mentorships work best when they allow a less experienced user to become friends with a more experienced user. I'm willing to be your friend in this regard, but I'm nervous about involving myself in any arbcomm games at this time having come out from under arbcomm sanctions not too long ago myself. Please let me know if there is anything more I can do. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ping. I have sent you an e-mail → A + B + C = ? At this point, my best guesses are only tentative, but it's a beginning. --Tenmei (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist -- Paraphrasing analytical opinion:
The Tang Dynasty struggle suggests that changing a trajectory is the ultimate measure of a ArbCom’s success or failure; but I'm not certain what that means in practical terms?

My aim is to enhance a long-term WP:V + WP:RS + WP:NOR + WP:NPOV policy in a context informed by Wikipedia's "core policies".

WP:Five Pillars are presumed to inform everything to do with Wikipedia, not excluding dispute resolution process; however, in the ArbCom case and its aftermath, I discern no evidence which supports that presumption. In this uncertain context, I'm confused by the way the process has unfolded. Throughout it all, American President Obama's words are a valid summary of my point-of-view in what was converted into a kind of zero sum game:

"I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true.
"I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live up to what light I have.
"I must stand with anybody that stands right; stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong."
— Abraham Lincoln. Journal of Education, Volume 81. February 11, 1915, p. 147; Case and Comment, Vol. 23. p. 125; Alex Spillius. "Barack Obama finds his presidential form in health care campaign," The Independent (London). 21 March 2010.

Each of my edits is explicitly intended to strengthen the foundation for sustainable, broadly-shared growth. Everything else — except for the core values of the five pillars — is negotiable.

I want to participate on an edit-by-edit basis in charting the course for the supertanker, not to steer it around each wave or decide which crates are loaded into its hull." --Tenmei (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"Obama And The Supertanker"
Original. "The health care struggle suggests that Obama views changing that trajectory as the ultimate measure of a presidency's success. His aim is to establish a long-term political direction -- one centered on a more activist government that shapes and polices the market to strengthen the foundation for sustainable, broadly shared growth. Everything else -- the legislative tactics, even most individual policies -- is negotiable. He wants to chart the course for the supertanker, not to steer it around each wave or decide which crates are loaded into its hull."
— Mark Murray. "Obama Agenda:Obama's Supertanker," MSNBC. March 19, 2010, citing Brownstein in the National Journal.
Re-statement. "The health care Tang Dynasty struggle suggests that Obama User:Tenmei views changing that trajectory as the ultimate measure of a presidency ArbCom’s success. His User:Tenmei's aim is to establish a long-term political WP:NPOV direction — one centered on a more activist government WP:Dispute resolution process that shapes and polices the market community to strengthen the foundation for sustainable, broadly-shared growth. Everything else — the legislative tactics, even most individual policies—is negotiable. He wants to chart the course for the supertanker, not to steer it around each wave or decide which crates are loaded into its hull."
Original. "Yale University political scientist Stephen Skowronek, a shrewd student of the presidency, sees in this complex record evidence that Obama and his team are torn between consensual and confrontational leadership styles. The first, he says, stresses "the progressive reform idea of bringing everybody to the table [for] rational, pragmatic decision-making." The second argues "that you transform politics only through wrenching confrontation." Skowronek believes that the most-consequential presidents, such as Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, usually start with the first approach and evolve toward the second as they encounter entrenched resistance
¶Liberals who consider Obama too conciliatory have speculated that his willingness to use the Senate reconciliation process to force a final vote on health care signals a turn toward consistent confrontation. But it seems more likely that he will continue to seek broad coalitions on some issues (education, energy, immigration) while accepting, even welcoming, greater partisan conflict on others (financial reform). The approaches that Skowronek views as alternatives Obama may consider tools he can wield in different combinations for each challenge. The constant is Obama's determination to turn the supertanker -- and his Reagan-like willingness to bet his party's future on his ability to sell the country on the ambitious course he has set."
— Ronald Brownstein. "Obama And The Supertanker: the Constant in Obama's Presidency has been his determination to chart a new course." National Journal. March 20, 2010.
Re-statement "[Yale University]] political scientist Stephen Skowronek, a shrewd student of the presidency, sees in this complex record evidence that Obama and his team are torn between consensual and confrontational leadership styles. The first, he says, stresses "the progressive reform idea of bringing everybody to the table [for] rational, pragmatic decision-making." The second argues "that you transform politics only through wrenching confrontation." Skowronek believes that the most-consequential presidents, such as Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, usually start with the first approach and evolve toward the second as they encounter entrenched resistance
Liberals who consider Obama too conciliatory have speculated that his willingness to use the Senate reconciliation process to force a final vote on health care signals a turn toward consistent confrontation. But it seems more likely that he Will ArbCom continue to seek broad coalitions on some issues (education, energy, immigration) while accepting, even welcoming, greater partisan conflict on others (financial reform). The approaches that Skowronek views as alternatives Obama may consider tools he can wield in different combinations for each challenge. The constant is Obama's determination to turn the supertanker -- and his Reagan-like willingness to bet his party's future on his ability to sell the country on the ambitious course he has set."

Undecided

Abce2

Sure

But I'm still a little confused. I'll be on again in 7 hours, so you can explain to me. Cheers, Abce2 (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Chrohnie

Hey there Tenmei, just want you to know I just sent you an email. I didn't see your subpage before now, you may have sent me the dif but I haven't checked the latest ones you sent me yet. Ignore my questions about who you picked, I just saw. Take all the time you need to respond to me, no hurry on my part. ;) --CrohnieGalTalk 12:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

RatónBat

Some questions:

  1. Did I wrote myself at the list at the project page?
  2. What's that mentorship thing?
  3. What do I have to do if I accept?

--RatónBat Talk 2 me!! 15:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe

Hi Tenmei. I did not realise that previous notes were about you personally. I am looking into the links you have provided.

  • Why are you seeking multiple mentors? I believe in a single mentor. If there are multiple mentors, there must be agreement among the mentors.
  • I found some questions posed by yourself. You seem to think they are difficult. I think they are very easy:
  • You should apologise whenever you realise that you have contributed to perceived difficulty or slight by another party. It does not matter if the cause was justifified, a communication ambiguity, or a reasonable inaction. Apologise now.
  • You should apologise publicly and simply. Equivocating about the forms of an apology means that you are not apologising.
  • You must never expect, and never ask for anyone to apologise to you. To demand an apology is to be backward looking, negative, and confrontational. A demanded apology is not an apology. What you may ask for is that someone not to something again.
  • If following the above leaves you feeling aggrieved, see Meatball:DefendEachOther. Don't attempt to defend yourself. If you are justified, your only recourse is to wait for others to defend you. You may ask someone to look at a situation and to give their comment.
  • If you can accept the above, and would like me to play a role of "official" mentor, I would also like some succinct statements on (1) Who you are & (2) Why you are here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Unclassifiable

Email spamming

→ see also: WP:Spam; Wikipedian canvassing -- sometimes referred to as internal "spamming", see WP:Canvassing

Please stop spamming emails to hundreds of users. It's not productive. Thank you. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have sent you an email explaining. --Tenmei (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
This was an outside the box search for potential mentors. See Nine-dot puzzle images above. --Tenmei (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Help:Using colours#Overrigding font colour --> text in yellow background


Mentorship sandboxes

This graphic representation of Tang Dynasty as a "cautionary tale" bears closer study.

Sandbox 3

Mentorship sandbox 3

Talk:Order of Culture#Requested move (permanent link)

  • N.b., diff 12:43, 17 November 2009 John Vandenberg (14,134 bytes) (remove unhelpful comments by Tenmei which are not related to the article or the move; in addition Tenmei is not supposed to interact with Caspian blue)


Polltop: Not Moved. Due to this discussion, the Korean award's article is now at Order of Cultural Merit with hatnotes on each article thanks to Dekimasu, so there is no confict in the two articles' English titles. Station1 (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Order of Culture → Order of Culture (Japan) — South Korea's national merit awarded to people who significantly contribute to Korean culture is also named "Order of Culture"[11] and uses the same Chinese character with the Japanese one. I'm not sure as to whether the name is applied to PRC or POC or other countries'. The article for the Korean national merit is not created yet, but there are many articles on recipients such as Patti Kim. This request also applies to Category:Order of Culture recipients So the title and article at Order of Culture should remain as a disamibugation page. Since Medals of Honour (Japan) and Military Medals of Honor (Japan) use "(Japan)" instead of "of Japan", this request is consistent with the Japanese naming convention.--Caspian blue 22:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the name of Korean order Order of Cultural Merit? See List of prizes, medals, and awards#Korea. Already Order of Military Merit (Korea) and Order of National Security Merit (Korea) exist. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, my request is based on the same Chinese characters of the two states' national order, and if you look into other disamibiguation pages, "not exactly" same entries are shared. I'm standing by my request.Caspian blue 22:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reason expressed succinctly by Dekimasu: Preemptive disambiguation is deprecated. In addition, the following points are relevant:
A. This non-issue is most easily resolved by relying on the explicit expression of the Korean government website which elaborates on the national system of orders, decorations and medals. See, e.g., 문화훈장(文化勳章, Order of Culture Merit.
B. This non-issue was contrived by Caspian blue without foundation or merit. Indeed, even the link proffered in ostensible support fails in this too-facile gambit. See, e.g., Han Sang-hee. "Bae Receives National Order of Culture Merit," Korea Times. October 19, 2008.
C. With regret, I feel compelled to note that the community has ill-served Caspian blue in the past by validating this confrontational tactic; but perhaps instead this thread can evolve into a teachable moment with unanticipated consequences? --Tenmei (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Tenmei, I'm sorry, haven't you been under the WP:ARBCOM probation because of "your ill-served behaviors" recognized by ArbCom? Judging by your "current" violation of your [[WP:ARBCOM] probation again in regard to commenting about me here, I guess you don't get your teachable moment yet regardless of your active sanction. Your WP:Bad faith, and personal attacks are out of line. Comments about edit or the request are fine just like the others, but if you do not stop making personal attacks against me and strike the comments, I would make formally make WP:AE report on your violation as well as the others for the past months in which you've violated a lot. This is my last generosity on your violations. When you made made incorrect edits to articles, I did not play such low blow.--Caspian blue 22:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Caspian blue -- Rejecting this too-facile gambit and the muddied prose above: Who's kidding who?
I retract no words posted in this thread. This problem-which-doesn't-need-to-be-a-problem remains a non-issue.
The edit history of Order of Cultural Merit (Korea) includes no evidence of a need for disambiguation, nor does it support an alleged need to change the name of this article. contributions from Caspian blue. The following citations support a select list of Korean recipients; and each of these reliable Korean sources support the moderate views expressed by Dekimasu and Phoenix7777:
In the service of deliberately redundant pedagogicial emphasis, one simple sentence deserves repeating:
PREEMPTIVE DISAMBIGUATION IS DEPRECIATED
.
Caspian blue -- This thread's hollow proposal illustrates a too-familiar tactic which you have used again and again. A corollary question needs to be asked: To what purpose? What is the objective? the goal? the outcome?
Caspian blue -- On the basis of your comments above, the opportunity to whine about WP:Bad faith and personal attacks is at the top of an not-very-obscure agenda. Your sentences admit no possibility of constructive engagement; and more importantly, they address nothing to do with the stated purpose of this thread.
In the narrow context of this thread, yes -- you do appear to have been misguided by other well-meaning members of this community. If I understand correctly, you are convinced that the "victimized tactic" or the "righteous indignation tactic" or some other tactic will be effective in this venue. As I see it, your belief is informed by serial disputes in the past. These experiences appear to have taught you that the aggrieved, plaintive and exaggerated prose conventionally overwhelms rational review and calm discourse.
Despite Dekimasu's terse formulation of policy, your experiences appear to have demonstrated to your satisfaction that preemptive disambiguation is a cost-effective, low-risk wager.
I say "No."
The most important thing here is <font color="darkgreen"what you don't manage to find time to write about the 문화훈장(文化勳章, Order of Culture Merit. The English-language pages of the government of the Republic of South Korea does not support the proposed edit frail presumptions your position relies on. From what I can tell from a review of your past experiences, the community is not likely to give even superficial scrutiny to this flimsy foundation, focusing instead on the structure of complaints you erect. With astonishment, this has been among the lessons learned the hard way as I've seen this scenario play out again and again.
Bottom line: You have been poorly served by those members of this community who have unwittingly taught you that unsourced assertions are more persuasive than anything else. You've learned the wrong lessons. You've been taught the wrong lessons. This newest conflict becomes an unwanted and unwelcome consequence of past failures. --Tenmei (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Restatement

My contributions to this not-very-complicated thread have been informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point in a predicatbly escalating drama:

  • 1. What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
  • 2. What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does each cited source reflect that consensus?
  • 3. Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
  • 4. Are unsourced assertions being used?

Can't we agree that this provides a commonly accepted foundation for our work together. --Tenmei (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Addenda: President Obama's remarks in Beijing were filmed by China Central Television and excerpts were re-broadcast. In my view, a paraphrase of one paragraph would seem constructive in the context created by Dekimasu's comment below. Obama observed, "There is a Chinese proverb: Consider the past, and you shall know the future. Surely, we have known setbacks and challenges ... [but] the notion that we must be adversaries is not predestined -- not when we consider the past .... build[ing] upon our mutual interests, and engag[ing] on the basis of mutual respect." [emphasis added]
-- The White House, Office of the Press Secretary: "Remarks by President Barak Obama at Town Hall Meeting with Future Chinese Leaders, Museum of Science and Technology, Shanghai, China," November 16, 2009.
Caspian blue I wonder if a 19th century, American-English idiomatic phrase may be helpful here? a step in a constructive direction? I wonder if it might be seen as ameliorative to state bluntly that you are this proposed edit is barking up the wrong tree. --Tenmei (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
See also Barking up the wrong tree.--Tenmei (talk) 06:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Tenmei

WP:TL;DR. Wonderful, Tenmei, as always. In just skimming through your lengthy reply to me, it is a good move on my part that I contacted ArbCom for your above breach on your WP:ArbCom sanction because this pattern of your disruption and incivility have been continued and so large. If you just commented about my request for the move like the other editors have commented, then we could just discuss in peacefully. Of course, I did not know the existence of Order of Cultural Merit (Korea), and if I've known, I would have linked it to Patti Kim, a recently created article by me. None had come here to discuss about for the past 9 days until today. My request for the move is related to the article as I've said. The request is based on the same "Chinese words", so I thought it is worthy to bring up to discuss instead of WP:BOLDly moving the article. However, since you're no intention to retract your inappropriate comments but rather added more snide comments based on your long-term grudge which are considered as your violations, well, will see how the things going. Thanks. I think I've given too many chances on your violations since the last June.--Caspian blue 02:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Not a reply to anyone in particular

Article titles on the English Wikipedia are determined by English usage, not the usage of Chinese characters. Separately, there have been some moves made to create disambiguation pages for the Chinese characters themselves when they can be interpreted in an ambiguous fashion. That may be appropriate here, but only if we think it's possible that a user would put the Chinese characters into the search box on the English Wikipedia. As for the English names, they do not conflict and need not have parentheticals. It is unfortunate that Order of Cultural Merit was a redlink. I have moved Order of Cultural Merit (Korea) there per this discussion and added hatnotes to both articles. I think that this should be sufficient regardless of the arguments above, which have unfortunately strayed from the intended subject of discussion. If the objective of the move request itself is not resolved by this, please let me know how. Otherwise, I hope that someone uninvolved from WP:RM will add a closing statement to this discussion. Dekimasuよ! 03:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Pollbottom

CAVEAT -- In every circumstance where I might directly address any editor, change the sentence so that "this edit" is the subject of the sentence.

EXAMPLE:
See also Barking up the wrong tree.
See also Barking up the wrong tree.
  • BEST

Do you know the American idiomatic expression: "barking up the wrong tree? The link will help clarify its etymology and current usage. I wonder if it might be seen as moderate language if I were to suggest that this edit is "barking up the wrong tree"?

1st response in any thread

In this thread, let's begin by agreeing that the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing. In other words: (a) we can agree that there are some facts which are relevant in this article; and (b) we can agree that "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts"

1st reply to any characterization

Rather than following your line of reasoning where it seems likely to go, why don't we simply agree that "truth is generally the best vindication." In other words -- as we agreed above: (a) we can agree that there are some facts which are relevant in this article; and (b) we can agree that "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts"

1st reply to any provocative gambit

Rather than following your line of reasoning where it seems likely to go, why don't we simply agree that "truth is generally the best vindication." In other words -- as we agreed above: (a) we can agree that there are some facts which are relevant in this article; and (b) we can agree that "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts"

"Truth is generally the best vindication" – full text of letter in which quote appears
July 14,1864.— Letter To Secretary Stanton.
Executive Mansion, Washington, July 14,1864. Hon. Secretary of War.
Sir: Your note of to-day inclosing General Halleck's letter of yesterday relative to offensive remarks supposed to have been made by the Postmaster-General concerning the military officers on duty about Washington is received. The general's letter in substance demands of me that if I approve the remarks I shall strike the names of those officers from the rolls; and that if I do not approve them the Postmaster-General shall be dismissed from the Cabinet
Whether the remarks were really made I do not know, nor do I suppose such knowledge is necessary to a correct response. If they were made, I do not approve them; and yet, under the circumstances, I would not dismiss a member of the Cabinet therefor. I do not consider what may have been hastily said in a moment of vexation at so severe a loss is sufficient ground for so grave a step. Besides this, truth is generally the best vindication against slander. I propose continuing to be myself the judge as to when a member of the Cabinet shall be dismissed. Yours truly, A. Lincoln in Abraham Lincoln: Complete Works, Vol. II, pp. 547-548 (1907).


Changing the focal point?

Do you know the American idiomatic expression: "barking up the wrong tree? The link will help clarify its etymology and current usage. I wonder if it might be seen as moderate language if I were to suggest that this edit is "barking up the wrong tree"?

Sandbox 4

Mentorship sandbox 4

This is a working draft version of this page, as edited by Tenmei at 22:11, 6 December 2009.


Request to amend prior case: Tang Dynasty

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

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

Amend this case by annulment

Statement by Tenmei

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tenmei's reply to Nick-D

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

Tenmei's reply to Teeninvestor

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

Tenmei's reply to Caspian blue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First part of Arbitrators' summary below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Second part of Arbitrators' summary below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this suitable?

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

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

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

Today, my response is quite different. No.

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

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

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

Think again.

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

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

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

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

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

You will have to do better than this.

No. --Tenmei

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

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

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

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


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

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

Consequences are never unimportant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Bueller 007

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

Statement by Nick-D

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

Statement by Teeninvestor

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

Statement by Caspian blue

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

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

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

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

Statement by Penwhale

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

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

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

Amendment 2

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

Statement by your username (2)

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

Statement by other editor (2)

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

Further discussion

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

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Make formal recusal due to my original position as commentator in the original case. (Despite the fact that I've not been active much lately...) - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 08:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

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

Tang Dynasty motions

Six month review

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

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

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

Support
  1. This is a fair summary. Carcharoth (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  2. Wizardman 19:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  3. — Coren (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  4.  Roger Davies talk 18:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  5. Vassyana (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  6. Risker (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse
Discussion
  • I think this accurately sums up the last six months. I'll not support it until Tenmei and other committee members have had time to comment. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Tenmei mentor

Tenmei (talk · contribs) is required to have one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.

While Tenmei is without a mentor, Tenmei is prohibited from contributing except for the purpose of communicating with potential mentors. During this period, Tenmei is instructed to avoid talking about other editors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  2. Carcharoth (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  3. As Wizardman says, this may be suboptimal; but it's necessary. — Coren (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  4. Weakly support; still unsure but it's something. Wizardman 19:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  5. Weakly support. Tenmei should interpret this as strong motivation to focus on obtaining a mentor, rather than a new opportunity to debate, else other stronger remedies may be put in place. Risker (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
This I don't know. I'd rather give him a time limit and if he can't do it, it's a full ban. Wizardman 19:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  1. Per Wizardman.  Roger Davies talk 18:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  2. Time limits. Vassyana (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Recuse
Discussion
  • This motion is intended to also cater for the possibility that a mentor, if one is found now, could conclude the mentoring arrangement, in which case it is necessary for Tenmei to seek another mentor. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Clerk notes

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

Sandbox 6

Mentorship sandbox 6

d

Sandbox 8

Mentorship sandbox 8

d

Sandbox 9

Mentorship sandbox 9

d

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Enkyo2/Sandbox-M&oldid=452239956"