Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Tenmei

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Mentors

I have informed the Tenmei's mentors of this RFC. Taemyr (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't even know Tenmei had mentors, or that he was previously sanctioned by Arbcom, until Nick-D pointed it out. I'm definitely interested to know how mentoring with Tenmei has gone in the past, if they've seen improvements, and/or what they think might be appropriate for the future. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems that the issue revolves around Tenmei's use of language. There seems to be the implications that he is

1. using language like this on purpose
2. he could change his language use if he wanted to but doesn't
3. his first language is something else.

Personally I do not think he can easily change the way he uses the English language just as none of us are able to easily change the language we use or the manner in which we speak. Second he has been working on writing in a way more accessible to the majority of English speaks. Third I am unsure what his first language is or how many languages he speaks. These are however his personal details and thus none of our business.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the assumption of bad faith is very strongly expressed in the viewpoints expressed by the originators of this RFC.

However ultimately a user can be disruptive even if acting in perfectly good faith. If Tenmei is unable to comunicate with people the that is a serious impediment to the collaborative process. An impetiment which is disruptive.

This was also the finding during the RfA.

after edit conflict In short the way that Tenmei comunicates when in disputes is our business if his way of communcating is disruptive. Taemyr (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:RfA? Do you mean ArbCom? I agree that Tenmei's communication needs more work if he is going to continue working in controversial areas. Tenmei should however be commended for not responding in kind to the personal attacks he has withstood. Personal attacks or more detrimental to the long term success and globalization of Wikipedia than someone with an erudite vocabulary. I will speak with Tenmei further about communication. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess I mean WP:RfAr. But yes the arbitration. Diffs on personal attacks? Taemyr (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Provided here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I responded in the following section about those personal attacks. And Taemyr, we've provided a number of diff's in the RFC/U which Tenmei himself made personal attacks on others (ala "cup and ball games", "put up or shut up", "con game", "shill", seduced by the fraud"). Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

A few comments for User:Jmh649

This is in response to [1].

1. The language issue is a concern shared by not only myself. Even though we should be more tolerant to non-native speakers, it should not mean some people can use this tolerance to write in whatever way they want. In this case, my opinion was shared by many. I can cite the diff's if you wanted, but I believe the ArbCom reference has more than enough criticisms of a similar nature.

Secondly, you cited a conversation between myself and User:Qwyrxian. My comment definitely assumed lots of bad faith on Tenmei because we were talking about filing an RFC/U or ANI against Tenmei - If good faith is assumed, then we probably wouldn't bother with this. Also, since Qwyrxian is an informed participant, there's little need to cite ideas what he already knew much about.

3. The first diff recommended him to change to a more helpful writing style. I don't see any problems with it. The second diff also talked about a failure in collaborative editing that needs to be corrected. The third diff asked Tenmei to deal with two diffs that were associated with the NPOV board discussion.

Anyhow... I don't really know what to say if you manage to equate criticisms to personal attacks and blame people for assuming bad faith in a RFC/U. I'd also like the point out that this RFC/U's not just about Tenmei's writing but also his various WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:TENDENTIOUS behaviour. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The WP:RfC article specifically speaks about the importance of WP:AGF in dispute resolution. Some of the statements made here on the Qwyrxian talk page [2] are not getting dispute resolution off to a good start. As per the RfC instructions diffs "should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise" and should not be "brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary" and "RfC is not a venue for personal attack." The diffs you provide appear to be more of the later rather than the former. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Since you are such an advocate of WP:AGF, let me share a quote from that policy page with you:

Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. Just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed, and exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others if a perceived assumption of bad faith was not clear-cut.

In short, WP:AGF should not be used as an excuse to attack people who make accusations or criticisms.

With that said, I can also consider you are assuming bad faith based on your assertions that I was using an RfC to "harass or subdue an adversary" or use it as a "venue for personal attack". But you are right - The statements I said to Qwyrxian definitely did not assume much good faith on Tenmei at all. However, we've also provided evidence that suggest there was a clear and deliberate intent on his part to edit disruptively. If you still would like to argue this is some unfair bullying case that's clearly meant to discriminate Tenmei's language skills, then feel free.

For reference, also read WP:AAGF, Wikipedia:AAAGF, WP:AAGFAAGF.

Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I could use the term uncivil if you would prefer as there was more than a failure to WP:AGF in some of your comments. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care actually. I replied simply to address the issues you raised. In response to "uncivil", I'd say you can complain however you like about it. While the comments I wrote of Tenmei's behaviour and contributions are not flattering, I also don't see any intrinsic properties in WP:CIVIL that'd invalidate anything written in the RFC/U. If you disagree with my assessment and consider Tenmei to be a very productive and fair editor, then I believe there's much more you can do to refute such criticisms than simply telling everyone my comments are rude. Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"My comment definitely assumed lots of bad faith on Tenmei because we were talking about filing an RFC/U or ANI against Tenmei - If good faith is assumed, then we probably wouldn't bother with this." So I don't quite see how WP:AAGF applies. (I actually think Tenmei is acting in good faith and are far from conviced that this invalidates the need for this RfC) Taemyr (talk) 07:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You may have misinterpreted what you've quoted, as I didn't say AGF invalidates the need for RfC. What I meant was that the triggering point of this RfC's filing is a number of (at least what I consider as) bad faith edits made by him.

No. That's about what I was responding to. Since you state that you consider Tenmeis edits in bad faith AAGF doesn't apply. Taemyr (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to Wikipedia:AAGF#Reasons_for_Misuse and Wikipedia:AAGF#Summary. If you think Tenmei was editing in good faith, then I'd suggest you to read about the coat-racking incident Qwyrxian reported. I don't see how moving POV materials from page to page is an act of good faith especially when an admin had deleted them once already. Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

POV pushing is not bad faith editing. Taemyr (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I am referring to this type of POV pushing. Here, let me quote:

• A bad faith edit, or a bad faith comment, is an edit or comment made deliberately to disrupt the project. It is deliberately trying to inject a non-neutral point-of-view into an article. It is deliberate vandalism such as inserting profanity or obscene and off-topic words or comments into an article. This is of course, not exhaustive, but the key component necessary for bad faith is the deliberate attempt to be unconstructive

Yes. And there is no particular reason to assume that tenmei is deliberatly attempting to be unconstructive. Assuming good faith we should assume that he believes that the edits and arguments he makes are intented to create a better encyclopedia by inclusion of relevant and reliable sources. The totally irresposible answer to a dispute that he chose of just moving the disputed content to another article falls under the same issue, he might be genuinly convinced that this makes for a better encyclopedia. Taemyr (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In that spirit, one can argue that any person X who repeatedly broke rules Y1...Yn to be potentially act in good faith due to some hypothetical reason that compelled him/her to believe this will be beneficial to WP. Of course, that's barring the scenarios when the offender personally admitted bad faith. Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I vacillate on whether or not Tenmei is acting in good faith. I think that the painful work that xe does on talk pages at least starts out in good faith (I think that for xem, the tables and graphs and linked cliches do help explain something, even if they don't for anyone else), but I think that when people tell you to stop doing something and you do it anyway because it "shows that you're working hard", you've moved over into acting against the interest of the encyclopedia. Similarly, the coatracking to me appears to be acting in bad faith, because I simply cannot work out any possible reason for adding that information to that article other than 1) to push a POV or 2) to find a place to put xyr pet project because it was removed from other places. As I often see on ANI, WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. And, any way, there comes a point where, even if a user is acting in good faith, that they need to learn that their way of acting is contrary to community norms, and must be changed. The question of this RFC/U is whether or not Tenmei's editing has reached that point. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I do agree Tenmei started out with good faith initially.

As for the issue WP:AGF, I believe User:HXL49 illustrated a concern that I quite agree with. One thing that makes me feel rather uncomfortable is the impression I get from some individuals that they were using a lack of WP:AGF as a means of delegitimizing potentially valid concerns/criticisms. I could be wrong, of course, since my experience in WP is rather limited compared to the veterans here, but I am quite confident that things don't work this way IRL (not even in academia). Maybe we can get some input from some expert WP mediators on this? Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ

ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ, I read your comment about how you think Bob does not sometimes himself cause problems. Have you read Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Bobthefish2? I guess not. Have a look at that and some uninvolved discussions of his behaviour. You might want to modify your view of this RfCU. John Smith's (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I should clarify. There is no question (to me) that Bob's editing style also has problems that need to be changed (as you know, I provided a great number of diffs in that WQA supporting the claim that Bobthefish2 acts uncivilly). That does not change the fact that Tenmei's behavior is also, I believe, problematic. In any event, even if people think that Bobthefish2's claims are "tainted" by personal animosity, the question is whether or not the diffs provided of Tenmei's behavior in the Summary section are, in fact, cause for concern. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Animosity is such a strong word. I simply stopped trusting Tenmei's intentions, that's all.

Anyway, even if Qwyrxian is right about me being a bit on the impolite side, its effects is dwarfed by the amount of disruption caused by Tenmei. In addition, Tenmei has his share of WP:CIVIL violations such as tell people to "put up or shut up" or accusing others of running a "con game" - I'd rank this to be above and beyond whatever "personal attacks" I've supposedly used in WP. Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thus dispute resolution is rarely one sided. It seems like a few editors need to adjust their editing style going forwards to be compliant with WP policy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Absoutely. No doubt about that. And that has nothing to do with this RfC/U. This isn't a question about how to solve the overall editing problems at the SI pages, although it is one part of the overall process. This is a question about whether or not Tenmei's editing style on both articles and talk pages meet community norms. I would ask that people commenting (with whatever perspective) try to focus on the purpose of an RfC/U. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:RfC "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors." Thus my comment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Query WP:CANVASS

This was brought forwards by another user and I too have concerns regarding these edits by Qwyrxian [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. A message inviting certain user who have dealt with the Island issue too comment is a little unusual for a RfC.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I posted a note on Collect's talk page. I sincerely thought I was following WP:CANVAS by blanket inviting every user who had been involved in the 2 articles, and a few admins that had dealt with it. I sent comments to every person, regardless of whether they generally agreed with Tenmei or not. Furthermore, as far as I can see and remember who I invited, so far only 2 people from that group have replied: John Smith, and HXL49, who have expressed opposing views here. There are no Wikiprojects to invite as this is a behavioral issue, so I'm not clear how else I could have helped to get sufficient commentary here. I'll re-read WP:CANVAS later today, as maybe there is particular advice for RFC/U's that I was unaware of, but my understanding was that as long as people are not chosen to reflect a limited viewpoint (they weren't) and the invitation is neutral, that this constitutes acceptable canvassing. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I have explained the difference between an RfC on an article, where such notifications are proper, and RFC/Us where the ideal is to get disinterested observers to comment on an editor, and where notifying any subset of editors on an article may have the unintended effect of "front loading" criticism of the editor in question. Thanks - I am sure Q had no intention of doing such, but the result would be the problem, and not the intent. Collect (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a post made by User:Ncmvocalist in response to a question about WP:CANVAS. Qwyrxian, in this case, has practically invited all users that were ever active in the page when Tenmei first participated in the discussion in October 2010. There's also no additional guideline for RFC/U with respect to WP:CANVAS. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I apprised Q of the concern. I can, of course, direct your attention to the many places where ArbCom has made explicit its position on this. Sufficient is this: The determination of proper consensus is vulnerable to unrepresentative participation from the community. Because of the generally limited number of editors likely to participate in any given discussion, an influx of biased or partisan editors is likely to generate an improper illusion of a consensus where none (or a different one) would exist in a wider population. The goal in any such discussion should be to seek representative participation from the enitre community. Collect (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This quote is about the establishment of a consensus on a subject and has little to do with WP:CANVAS, as it appears. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Based on Collect and Doc James' response, I am willing to accept that this may have been my misunderstanding of WP:CANVAS. I assumed that it was acceptable to canvas people who had recently been involved in editing the article just like we would for a regular RfC, under the WP:CANVAS guideline that states that we may post invitations "On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)." If the restriction on canvassing on RFC/Us is based on ArbCom rulings, then it would help if WP:CANVAS were updated to explain this difference (I try to be policy/guideline knowledgeable, but I certainly haven't read through the vast archive of ArbCom decisions). Having said all of this, can anyone point to any problem this has caused? Whether or not the canvassing was acceptable, it doesn't appear to have compromised the discussion as it doesn't look like there has been any "front-loading" of opinion either "for" or "against" Tenmei. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not see a point to have a different WP:CANVAS standard when the subject is about a user and not an article. If the concern is about whether or not WP:CANVAS is written correctly, the discussion should belong in there and not here. Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

An RFC on an article should have all the editors on the article notified. There is no possible equivalent to get an RFC/U with every person who has interacted with the subject being notified. The behaviour is about the editor, not about the article. RFC/Us are not about content disputes. Do you see the difference? Votestacking has been seen on all too many RFC/Us and XfDs on WP. In short - if the RFC were about this article, then the notices (presuming they are sent to everyone) would be reasonable. That is not the case, however, where the editor has interactions on a number of articles, and where there might be any possible votestacking occurring as a result of the notices. Q clearly did not intend any such result, and I have not seen such a result, but it is proper to be concerned lest such a result ensue. Thanks. Collect (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Collect. I do not see Q as doing this with malicious intent just that for behavior issues the ideal commentators or people not involved in a content dispute with said editor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input from both of you. I definitely see the sense in what you are saying. Should I ever file another RFC/U in the future (I sure hope I never feel the need to, I swear) I will definitely not canvas in this way. Should this canvassing late seem to have "tainted" the proceedings, then I definitely agree that we should be concerned about the result. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The first sentence in Collect's response is already problematic:

An RfC on an article should have all the editors on the article notified.

... because this implies all historical participants of a page must be invited.

Secondly, this RFCU is about a user's conduct on number of pages and not about his WP-wide behaviour. Even if his actions are perfect everywhere else, they are irrelevant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobthefish2 (talk • contribs)

My signing of Ajl772's coment

After carefully rereading Ajl772's comment, I decided that I endorse that summary as well--it is correct that working on Tenmei's problems (or what I perceive are problems) alone will not solve the problem at the SI pages. However, I believe that it is impossible to move forward on those solutions given what I perceive as Tenmei's current problems. In logic-speak, I would say that this RFC/U is necessary but not sufficient for progress on the articles. This is especially true given that the next logical step (at least from my perspective) would be that we move to mediation on both pages on a variety of issues. However, mediation cannot be entered into if any major editor refuses to participate, and Tenmei has explicitly refused to enter mediation. Thus, we have a situation where one of the most prolific editors has prevented us from moving on to the next step in dispute resolution. If Tenmei's editing is a problem (I'll note that almost no discussion has occurred so far on whether I might actually be right about POV pushing, battleground mentality, and/or disruptive editing; I really do want to hear if this is really an issue or it's just my imagination) and Tenmei refuses to seek the help of outside, uninvolved editors, what should we do? File a request for arbitration (the only other step left that I know of)? That seems insane, as I cannot believe that our situation is so broken or so pressing that we have to get an official, top-down ruling. I really want these articles to get better. I want Bobthefish2's incivility to stop (and xe has been sufficiently informed by myself and others that xe is nearing the end of our collective patience). I want to talk with Tenmei in a way that I actually understand on talk pages. I want all editors to listen to the input of uninvolved editors that we have gotten at various notice boards. I thought that one, but just one, aspect of working on this was this RfC/U. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide of dif of Tenmei's refusal? This does not appear to be a refusal just a complaint about the proposed phrasing of the terms of mediation. I agree the clarity of Tenmei's response could be improved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Seconded – Ajl^talk 05:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that you bring up that diff. If you're familiar with Tenmei's response patterns, I'm fairly certain that that was actually xyr very long and complicated way of saying no. Xe made several followup responses, and never once did xe state that xe was willing to enter mediation under different terms; rather, xe states that "The term 'mediation' is stripped of its natural meaning when unsupported generalizations are construed to be indistinguishable from citation-supported specifics. The foundation for WP:Mediation is critically undermined." When explicitly asked again if xe would enter mediation, xe was silent on the point. If I have misread xyr silence, then I humbly invite xym to respond here or on the article's talk page showing me that I'm wrong. However, if I was wrong, then I think that it would be very helpful if someone could explain to Tenmei that instead of providing us with wikilinked cliches, references to books on argumentation (see two subsections down in the archive), and graphs, that a simple statement like "Yes, I will enter mediation but not under the terms you proposed" is what we need. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

So far, the only response from Tenmei is this edit. I think in order for this RfC/U to move forward, someone needs to answer his questions without seeming confrontational. – Ajl^talk 05:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I can, of course, answer those questions politely and directly, but I have to assume that any answer I give will be taken in a less than friendly manner. Since giving feedback from uninvolved users is the point, I would love for someone else to try. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to drop the responses by at either my talk page, or through email. – Ajl^talk 05:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Early close?

I'm not seeing any forward progress here. Several users have mentioned that the very basis of this RFC seems a bit shaky, and nobody has responded to the subjects questions which were asked over a week ago now. As it stands I don't see anything to be gained from continuing this process, it's been a full week now since any of the involved users had anything to say, and many of the recent comments have been critical of this process. I suggest an early close is in order, with no conclusion drawn from it as there does not appear to be any consensus here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Sigh...obviously, if we're not getting anywhere, then I guess it can be closed. I fully accept that I may not have properly followed process with regards to notifications because the guidelines on WP:CANVAS aren't exactly clear in this case. However, I'll point out that that problem had absolutely no effect on the outcome of the RFC/U--it did not end up being front-loaded by involved users. I have no problem receiving criticism here, and agree with the underlying notion that opening a process of this kind also invites scrutiny on myself. In fact, I'd love it if someone could explain to me where I went wrong in the process of interacting with Tenmei, if I have done so. But I don't understand why there has been so much focus on the process and so much less on the actual issues I raised.

Also, I just looked back to the project page, and I do not believe it would be appropriate to say that no conclusion can be drawn, as I see a number of different editors citing problems with Tenmei's behavior. Furthermore, I don't see anyone defending xyr actions either (excepting to note that part of the problem is a lack of native-level fluency). The "counter-criticism" merely asserts that either 1) the process wasn't followed properly or 2) other editors on these pages, most notably the second person certifying the RFC/U, are also a problem. I agree with both of those assertions, but that doesn't change the fact that those editors who have commented on Tenmei's behavior do seem to be expressing problems with it, and would hope that anyone writing a closing summary would carefully note that. 00:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs)

I think the conclusion that can be drawn is that while several editors feel there are problems with Tenmei talk page behavior. None feel strongly enough about it to write a response to his questions. Taemyr (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

(Response to Taemyr) None feel strongly about it, or none feel brave enough to face yet another round of withering attacks? – Ajl^talk 05:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Response to Qwyrxian) While we're not here to discuss whether or not you violated WP:CANVAS, I have to say (in my opinion) that there may have been a breach there, but as you noted, "it did not end up being front-loaded by involved users", which leads me to conclude that, ultimately, no harm was done. Additionally, I'd have to argue that much of the focus has not been on the process; Currently there are 7 opinions regarding the issues raised and only 2 regarding the process.

I agree that it would not "be appropriate to say that no conclusion can be drawn", however in the context of this RfC/U, I would say that not much has been accomplished. My only defense for Tenmei for his behavior is that he is retaliating because others have "bit him", though I am not sure if they are "biting" him because he bit first (I just don't know). – Ajl^talk 05:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support early close – I too am somewhat reluctant to see this closed (there is a definite issue here). However, I agree with Beeblebrox that this isn't going anywhere. Give me a day (or less), and I'll try to come up with an appropriate closing statement, incorporating some of Q's concerns (I already attempted to write one, but more comments were posted while I was writing it, prompting me to wait a while longer). – Ajl^talk 05:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I've attempted to write an appropriate statement, but I keep getting stuck. Take a look at this and make suggestion/comments/etc there, which I will attempt to incorporate, and then I will bring it over here. – Ajl^talk 23:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion on staying away from SI pages is kind of moot--if you look at the talk page histories (Talk:Senkaku Islands and Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute) you'll see that it's been basically dead for weeks now; I can't even get anyone to talk about a grammar problem that needs to be fixed. Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "Possible salting of the Senkaku Islands and the dispute"; WP:SALT is something done on uncreated articles to prevent them from being created again. Both articles are currently indefinitely fully protected, although the complete lack of talk page discussion makes me think that should end somewhat soon. Third, a technical point: User:Bobthefish2's WQA is closed; the last post was on March 2 and it was archived on March 7 (so I'd just change that line to say that during the time the RFC/U was filed, his actions were also being questioned at WQA). I'll decline to comment on other possible issues, as they would basically just echo what I said in my own summary of the dispute. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Didn't realize they already were. Striking out.
2. Whoops. I didn't mean SALT. Just protection. Striking out per (1).
3. Fixed.

Bah. Two hours later, I've done countless previewed revisions to the Sandbox, and I still am not satisfied with it. Someone else can try having a go at it. – Ajl^talk 16:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that both Tenmei and a new outside editor have commented today, I think we should hold off at least a week or so to be sure more people aren't going to trickle in. I would also love it if someone could respond to Tenmei's response. While there's a dozen things that I could say, I'll just add one thing that stands out to me that has been one of the biggest problems: just because a statement is sourced (meets WP:V) does not mean that that is sufficient for the information to be included in an article. Tenmei's refusal to hear this point, which is well established on multiple policy pages including WP:V itself, seems to me to be a big part of the problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Again

I have two thoughts, neither worth a view:

• I'm sad to see that Tenmei is still conspicuously failing to function in a collaborative environment after all the effort made to support him and teach him necessary basic skills after the ArbCom case.
  It is not enough for editors to provide sources; it is not enough to editors to act in good faith. Editors must be WP:COMPETENT, and it is the unfortunate nature of humans that some incompetent people are invincibly blind to their own incompetence.
  As an example: It is pointless to answer Tenmei's questions. Years of experience has proven that Tenmei is only barely able to understand the specific answers, and has never grokked them enough to generalize those answers to the broader principles of appropriate social interaction, which would prevent this from happening over and over and over.
• I'm surprised that there's 52K on the RFC page, and not one link to WP:CPUSH. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I had not meant to be so wordy last night. The first bullet point should be translated as "Voluntary resolution is not possible, so further attempts are a waste of time." As a practical matter, one automatic way to close a hopeless RFC/U is to proceed to the next level of dispute resolution, e.g., ArbCom. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.