Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: John Vandenberg (Talk) & Newyorkbrad (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Case Opened on 14:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Case Closed on 21:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 22:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties[edit]

Statement by Qwyrxian[edit]

Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute have been the subject of dispute as far back as 2003 (See Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 1). Senkaku Islands has been protected 5 times, including twice in the past year, and is currently fully protected. Senkaku Islands dispute has been protected 5 times since its creation in October 2010, and is currently fully protected. The issues being debated range from individual word and grammatical choices, to identifying and interpreting RS's, to overall organization. One of the most persistent arguments revolves around the article title itself. The page has been moved unilaterally several times (see page logs), but was moved back each time. Various steps of dispute resolution have been taken; none have succeeding in ending the disputes. Specifically:

Also, issues relating to these pages have been raised on noticeboards and Wikitalk pages, including WP:NORN (Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 15#Figure captions in Senkaku Island/Diaoyutai article), WP:NPOVN (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 20#Long running dispute on Senkaku Islands dispute), WP:ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive8#Senkaku Islands stolen?, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive644#Senkaku Islands dispute, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive712#Senkaku Islands - admin COI intervention), WT:NCGN (4 discussions, see search results), and possibly others.

The aforementioned Mediation failed. It closed after numerous editors were unable to behave and stay on topic; eventually, several editors abandoned mediation and it closed without any useful result. These behavioral problems have been rampant on the article talk pages and related user talk pages since 2010. Some editors have held that no matter what consensus says, the current article title will never be acceptable. Others have used baiting and borderline personal attacks. Others overwhelm the talk page with extremely complex and nearly impossible to follow philosophical arguments and graphics. One editor was taken to WQA for xyr behaviors on these pages (Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive99#User:Bobthefish2); another was the subject of an RFC/U (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei). While in the past I had hoped to use the DR process to solve our problems, I have come to believe that until the behavioral problems are corrected, we will be unable to make constructive progress on the article content.

Finally, I would like to state that I am aware of the fact that ArbCom does not rule on content; however, if the committee accepts this case, and has any suggestions about how to settle the naming issue such as a binding RfC, a site-wide vote as happened for Liancourt Rocks, etc., input would be appreciated. The name has been one of the sticking points that keeps us from progressing on to actual article improvement, and so a lasting solution is highly desirable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs)

Statement by Magog the Ogre[edit]

Pardon me if I get any of this wrong... never filed an RFAr request before. Hopefully I don't miss anything important.

I entered the dispute through WP:AN3, a board which at times I frequent as a deciding admin. Since then, Senkaku Islands dispute has been subject to numerous locks [1], and Senkaku Islands has been on indefinite protection [2]. The page has gone through failed RFCs, a mediation, and requests at ANI to help, not to mention numerous pleas on my talk page surrounding the issue (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13).

At a few times, I may not have given the issue the proper consideration it was due (cf. 2, where I was a bit unnecessarily rude about it as well). Nevertheless, I have done what's in my power to try to further the resolution in a way amenable to all parties. Recently, I took the unorthodox step of placing Senkaku Islands dispute on mandatory WP:BRD watch - any party breaking BRD would be subject to a block. This was an unusual step, granted, but it was a last ditch effort on my part to come up with a solution short of indefinite full-protection and/or Arbcom intervention (oh, and it did have community support!).

Nevertheless, it has not worked. Since, it has been quite clear to me that:

  • All attempts at dispute resolution will continue to fail, as parties have and will continue to talk right past each other.
  • None of the players in the dispute has been acting poorly in an overt enough fashion that the community would support bans/blocks for any one deed, or even for behavior as a whole without an Arbcom ruling.
  • Certain figures have been acting in ways that has inflamed rather than alleviated the dispute.
  • The situation would be helped greatly and possibly solved altogether with the censure of non-helpful parties in a way which Arbcom can accomplish, but which the community at large cannot. "Cast out the scorner, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease."

On the case of figures acting poorly: in the past, I have called out specifically two editors:

  • User:Tenmei for his unnecessarily loquaciousness, which I believe has often been used (unintentionally) to cover up a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I also believe Tenmei exhibits a severe case of m:MPOV, and possibly a lack of necessary WP:COMPETENCE (it is hurtful, and it pains me to say, but I have no other explanation).
  • I have also called out User:Bobthefish2 for what I believe to be a desire to do nothing but troll and cause controversy. At every step of the way, his actions have seemed tailored to cause more strife, not less. Examples can be provided should Arbcom accept this case.
  • It is important to note that these are not the only editors I have seen problems from; these are simply the two I have dealt with the most, and most recently.

Finally, I would like to echo Qwyrxian's statement that Arbcom does not, and should not, rule directly on content (this is kind of important, in light of a careless comment I made which was copied and mailed to the Arbcom list, a comment which I was completely incorrect in making). However, some rules/guidelines for conduct and censure of the bad apples from Arbcom would be quite helpful. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved and redacted by clerk) @David Fuchs: I just want to say that they are based on user conduct. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Smith's[edit]

It's a shame to see the matter go to arbitration, but I had a feeling that it would. Although I haven't withdrawn from the discussions on the relevant talk pages, I've been so baffled by some discussions or disheartened by the lack of ability to agree on almost anything that I have contributed less than I used to. There is a problem that clearly can't be resolved without either:

a) mass community input from uninvolved editors that reaches "inviolable consensus"; or
b) sanctions and/or decisions on particular users that could allow the remainder to make progress

We have tried to get outside views, but no editors are willing to stick around and help move things forward. Which is understandable, and Wikipedia can't force people to come along to resolve problems. I also think that we've also got to the point where if action isn't taken, tensions could rise and more bitter actions take place that would be unfortunate. Sometimes prevention is better than cure, so I hope that the Arbitration Committee looks at this as an opportunity to stop escalation and having to hand out more severe sanctions later. John Smith's (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: To reiterate, I would say that the problems are largely down to user behaviour. John Smith's (talk) 21:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tenmei[edit]

Qwyrxian's open-ended request for help is a kind of trick question. It resists parsing. In our context of squandered opportunities, it is timely for ArbCom to acknowledge broader issues which are not made explicit.

  • More awareness of a growing issue that is poisoning the very essence of collaborative editing that makes Wikipedia possible: real-world factions that vie for control over articles, turning them into polemical battlegrounds where surface civility is used to cover bias, tendentiousness and even harassment.
Opportunity: ArbCom could choose to take a strong stance against that sort of "polite disruption" and those who use our rules of civility as weapons, recognize that long-term warriors are toxic, not vested, and investigate beyond surface behavior issues.
  • Less timidity in addressing issues related to contents (POV warring, tag teams, academic dishonesty).
Opportunity: ArbCom could choose to be more active at curtailing content disputes. Academic integrity should become a priority; unlike "simple" incivility, the damage caused by editors misquoting, plagiarizing and editorializing destroys the credibility of our encyclopedia.
  • Increased transparency in the dispute resolution process is needed.
Opportunity: ArbCom could choose to explain decision-making in better detail, including reasons and justification. It is important that the participants in dispute resolution and the wider community understand why ArbCom decides to intervene -- or not to intervene, because this suggests a way to approach similar problems in other contexts.

These are not all my words, but I adopt them as if they were my own. That said, ArbCom should decline to endorse the framing which Qwyrxian presents.

If this RfArb were construed to be an ordinary tool like an adjustable spanner, then Coren's premise here might be understood as something to do with using it more effectively?

Conventional dispute resolution tools are available, but we have seen these opportunities ignored, marginalized, thwarted, frustrated, etc. We have no good reason to hope for something better or different in this venue. --Tenmei (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Qwyrxian -- are you unable or unwilling to re-frame and sharpen the focus of your statement in paragraphs and bullet points which are congruent with Coren's comment here? --Tenmei (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ SirFozzi and David Fuchs -- responding to requests, is it constructive to suggest that your ability to appreciate of the marriage of "content" and "conduct" may be better informed by two related concepts?

These concepts are illustrated in the diffs of Qwyrxian and Bobthefish2 in one resolved thread here. The instructive value of this thread was highlighted by a proximal suggestion:

"...Let's just get the two pages locked so that they will move on ...." -- Bobthefish2 08:45, 27 January 2011

This is complicated, but not inconsistent with problems Coren proposes to address here? --Tenmei (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Penwhale[edit]

A lot of the dispute resolution has not result in participation by parties. In addition, the fact that the romanized-name of both Senkaku and Diaoyu(tai) are often misspelled adds to the difficulty of using other sources to see which one is more commonly used. You can see the various attempts at using web search hits to determine the name being used more on the article talk page.

If this request is accepted, then just like it was in the Liancourt Rocks case, only editor conduct should be looked into. In addition, perhaps a community input can be requested by Arbitration Committee to seek broader input. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 23:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by STSC[edit]

There are some "edit-warlords" constantly preventing any NPOV edit on the article; an intervention is needed to find a satisfactory solution. STSC (talk) 04:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lvhis[edit]

Eventually this case has been brought here. Took me for a while to be familiar with the procedure of ArbCom. I am still not sure if I have understood this procedure fully correctly. So please correct me if I am incorrect or inappropriate doing my part here.

I am a relative newer one involved in this topic since I did not touch these pages until February 21, 2011 [3] when I just came across that page. I think the substantial reason for such hardly resolvable dispute mainly due to that the dispute is tightly related to an international territory dispute like what happened in the case of the page Dokdo/Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks (or Islands). So I would like to echo Penwhale that this case is like Liancourt Rocks case. The fundamental problem that has caused this dispute being unresolvable so far is NPOV problem, like what is stated in the guideline WP:NCGN#Multiple local names "to avoid giving the impression of support for a particular national point of view", compromise should be reached between editors, and thereafter consensus can be reached. Unfortunately, certain users attitude (and conduct?) towards to NPOV policy and the particular guideline has made this kind of compromise or consensus almost impossible. (sorry, not yet finished and may add more later). --Lvhis (talk) 04:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Improper conduct 1: Pushing a wrong concept like "a non-English name is the real Enlish name" in this disputed issue with Original Thought/Researches, even when several reliable sources have been provided that there is a real and pure English name originated from English language itself, to refuse to reach consensus not only for the naming issue, but also for editing certain part of the page (1, 2). The main aim of such improper conduct is POV pushing. Recently such improper conduct was led by user Qwyrxian.

Improper conduct 2: Double standards that made certain editting-war prevention effort ineffective or in vain. For instance, a unorthodox sanction was set by admin Magog the Ogre recently for the page Senkaku Islands dispute and worked quite well at beginning that some sort of consensus for editing some part had even been reached (3, 4, 5), but later this sanction became actually ineffective, not only by user Tenmei's violation (6) but also by user Qwyrxian's cooperative "revert" (7) and a "discussion" (8) which interrupted another ongoing discussion (9) obeying the sanction, rather than reporting this to admin Magog the Ogre. User Qwyrxian also made an excuse for user Tenmei (10). When user Tenmei came back from his "wiki pausing", he challenged the saction bolder and bolder (11), and eventually has made admin Magog the Ogre fully protected that page (12). The lesson here I think is no matter what kind of sanctions, or block, or ban will be enforced, the more important or key point here is how to enforce it. Unbalanced enforcement of rules will ruin any efforts of such sanctions, bans, etc.

User Qwyrxian is a newly elected admin. He has been involved in this dispute for quite a long time and in a very deep extent. Although he did not use his admin tool in this dispute after getting his adminship, the situation for the disputed page after his back from a recent short break of him seemed has been deteriorated. In his RfA I made a firm "Oppose" vote (Oppose #5) and expressed my worry and concern. Although thereafter I once ever ignited a hope that his election would improve him and help to solve this dispute (13, 14), now I have been totally disappointed. He is also the requester of this RfAr. I know I challenged an admin but I hope for the sake of Wikipedia and of resolving the hardly resolvable dispute, the improper conducts mentioned above can be reprimanded. --Lvhis (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zscout370[edit]

I forgot how I was asked to look into the article, but I was involved with trying to steer the discussion on the title of the article. I have brought up the title "Pinnacle Islands" because it was similar to the result of the Laincourt Rocks (an issue that I have dealt with in the capacity as an OTRS agent by answering emails about the subject). I have not blocked any users over the issue, but I knew my involvement could have been seen as a possible POV problem because of my involved with the Japanese on and off wiki (ja-3). I also did not sanction any user with regards to the article or provided any article protections. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Feezo[edit]

As the appointed mediator in the Senkaku Islands formal mediation case, I affirm the Mediation Committee supports arbitration regarding the Senkaku Islands. I am of the opinion that the problems which this case addresses are almost exclusively user conduct. As mediator, I have a duty to ensure that conduct within the closed mediation case remains privileged: to that end, I have deleted the case talk pages for at least the duration of this arbitration. This is unlikely to have any influence on these proceedings, as conduct within the case was substantially similar to conduct without; examples have already been provided. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 18:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bobthefish2[edit]

Since this is just an initial statement, I will keep it short.

Tendentious editing is, by far, the most severe problem suffered by these pages. Almost every major discussion about content is paralyzed by this issue. Tenmei is, among all, the chief offender. He has a stubborn tendency of derailing debates and piling in tremendous amounts irrelevant and hard-to-parse arguments. Since this issue has already been described by other parties in an appropriate amount of detail, I’d leave it at that for now.

Despite Magog the Ogres and Qwyrxians’ complaints about civility, they’ve been party of substantially worse offenses recently. While I have had no problems with Magog in the past, he has recently mishandled a situation [4] – an allegation confirmed by another admin [5][6] – but refused to correct the matter. When asked for clarification, he said the matter was getting on his nerves [7] and then forcibly closed off the discussions to prevent more questions being asked [8]. Later, when asked another question about his handling of another situation, he refused to address the question and instead complained that the requesting party does nothing but troll [9].

Qwyrxian has often fancied himself as a neutral party and a civility crusader, but he has an unfortunate habit of WP:HOUNDing other people (such as myself). He has noted on an occasion that he held a personal bias against me and implied that he found content to be offensive partly because I was the author [10]. He is also a party to Magog’s recent inappropriate handling of issues and gamed the system in a very obvious manner.

That’s about all I would say for now. I will provide diffs, examples, and details in the next stage of the arbitration. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions[edit]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (7/0/1/1)[edit]

  • I could go either way on this. As stated, we avoid content rulings, but possibly what we could do is see who is preventing consensus from being reached and if they are acting in ways contrary to Wikipedia's norms and policies, remove them from the topic area. I could also see the area being placed under discretionary sanctions. If folks wouldn't mind, I'd like to see statements about how much of this dispute is conduct, and how much of the dispute is content. SirFozzie (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. I would think the various editors concerned would think this counted as sufficiently sticking my oar in already. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I echo SirFozzie's queries to the parties. I see that many dispute resolution methods have been tried, but if the underlying issues are not based on conduct then there's little we can really do. @Tenmei, I don't think single cases are the places to broaden or modify ArbCom's scope--that's something that should start with the community. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (Inline comment moved to own section by clerk) By convention, parties and arbs reply to each other in our respective sections. Jclemens (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept John Vandenberg (chat) 23:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting statements Jclemens (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept anything that MedCom defers and throws our way should be accepted by default. Jclemens (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awaiting further statements, leaning toward acceptance and the expectation that this could be a relatively quick case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept; this is a relatively simple case where it's likely consensus could be reached if everyone behaved and where Arbcom could help by making sure everybody does. — Coren (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. PhilKnight (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. –xenotalk 02:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

Principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, the furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Passed 12 to 0, 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view and undue weight[edit]

2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is also contrary to this principle.

Passed 12 to 0, 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Decorum[edit]

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Passed 11 to 0, 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Consensus[edit]

4) Wikipedia relies on a consensus model. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process, in lieu of soapboxing, edit warring, or other inappropriate behavior. Abuse of the consensus model and process, such as misrepresenting consensus or poisoning the well, is disruptive. Specific forums, such as those for deletion and page move discussions, have been created to seek and where possible attain consensus on specific types of content disagreements.

Passed 12 to 0, 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Talk pages[edit]

5) The purpose of a talk page is to provide a location for editors to discuss changes to the associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Editors should aspire to use talk pages effectively and must not misuse them through practices such as excessive repetition, monopolization, irrelevancy, advocacy, misrepresentation of others' comments, or personal attacks.

Passed 12 to 0, 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee[edit]

6) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Passed 12 to 0, 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive and tendentious editing[edit]

7) Contributors who engage in tendentious or disruptive editing – such as sustained and aggressive point-of-view pushing – may be subjected to editing restrictions on the articles in question or be banned from the topic or the site.

Passed 12 to 0, 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit wars are harmful[edit]

8) Edit-warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Passed 12 to 0, 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Disputes regarding article titles[edit]

9) Article titles are based on the name by which reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals. When there is no single obvious term that is obviously the most frequently used for the topic, as used by a significant majority of reliable English-language sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering recognisability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency.

Passed 12 to 0, 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Findings of fact[edit]

Focus of the dispute[edit]

1) The dispute centers around the name or names to be used on English Wikipedia when referring to the Diaoyu/Senkaku/Pinnacle Islands, in order that Wikipedia content is neutral on this real-world territorial dispute. Specifically, the dispute focuses on what name to use as the title of the Senkaku Islands article and related articles.

Passed 12 to 0, 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Real-world catalyst[edit]

2) The topic of the correct, neutral designation has been disputed on Wikipedia since 2003; however, interest in the dispute was renewed and increased after the 2010 Senkaku boat collision incident in September 2010.

Passed 12 to 0, 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Mediation unsuccessful[edit]

3) Since September 2010, the pages currently titled Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute have frequently been protected in response to edit-warring, such as the edit war in February over of the inclusion of tag {{NPOV-title}} on these articles.([11]; [12]; [13]) The dispute was taken to the Mediation Committee (Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands), but the mediation did not achieve a satisfactory resolution of the dispute.

Passed 12 to 0, 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Tenmei's history[edit]

4) Tenmei (talk · contribs) was topic-banned from a particular topic for six months as a remedy to the Tang Dynasty arbitration case of 2009, and thereafter, following a review, was permitted to edit Wikipedia only with the guidance of six publicly identified mentors.

Passed 12 to 0, 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Tenmei and disputes[edit]

5) Although Tenmei was counselled on this issue during the prior case, his manner and style of communications during disputes has not improved. Whether intentional or not, Tenmei's involvement in the current dispute has frustrated involved and uninvolved editors alike, amplifying and prolonging the dispute resolution process.(Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei (see views by HXL49 and Taemyr); Evidence section "Tenmei", provided by Qwyrxian; [14])

Passed 12 to 0, 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish2's history[edit]

6) Bobthefish2 (talk · contribs) registered an account in September 2010, and the user states that he or she was "new and was condescending".(User:Bobthefish2/ArbComEvidence) Since October 2010, Bobthefish2 has focused heavily on the Senkaku Islands dispute. Bobthefish2 has a limited number of contributions to other topics on Wikipedia.

Passed 12 to 0, 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish2[edit]

7) Bobthefish2 has engaged in a pattern of disruptive use of talk pages.([15]; [16][17]; [18]; [19];Evidence section "Bobthefish2", provided by Qwyrxian)

Passed 12 to 0, 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

STSC's history[edit]

8) STSC (talk · contribs) became an active user in October 2010, and was focused heavily on the Senkaku Islands dispute until June 2011. STSC is now contributing to a broader range of topics; however, a large proportion of these topics are similar territorial disputes, including Wikipedia article-naming disputes.(Talk:Swallow Reef#Layang Layang vs Swallow_Reef; Talk:Spratly Islands#Categorization as District of Khanh Hoa Province)

Passed 12 to 0, 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

STSC[edit]

9) STSC has made inappropriate sexualised comments about parties involved in this dispute.([20]; [21]; User_talk:STSC#Please_immediately_change_your_remarks; [22]; [23])

Passed 12 to 0, 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Tenmei topic banned indefinitely[edit]

1B) Tenmei is indefinitely topic banned from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace.

Passed 12 to 0, 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Tenmei advised[edit]

2A) Tenmei is advised that his unusual style of communication has not been conducive to resolving this dispute. Accordingly, Tenmei is urged to develop a different style of communication, which is more similar to that used by experienced Wikipedia editors. Until this happens, Tenmei is advised not to engage in topics which are the subject of a dispute.

Passed 7 to 4, 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Tenmei banned for one year[edit]

3A) Tenmei is banned for one year.

Passed 10 to 1, 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish2 topic banned[edit]

4A) Bobthefish2 is topic banned from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed, for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and user space.

Passed 12 to 0, 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

STSC warned[edit]

5) STSC is warned to avoid any sexualisation of discussions, especially during disputes.

Passed 12 to 0, 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Parties reminded[edit]

6) The parties are reminded that attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions, up to and including a ban from the project.

Passed 12 to 0, 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions[edit]

Rescinded by motion

7) The topic covered by the article currently located at Senkaku Islands, interpreted broadly, is placed under standard discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

Passed 12 to 0, 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Rescinded by motion at 22:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions for naming of disputed islands in East Asia[edit]

8A) An uninvolved administrator may, after a warning given a month prior, place any set of pages relating to a territorial dispute of islands in East Asia, broadly interpreted, under standard discretionary sanctions for six months if the editing community is unable to reach consensus on the proper names to be used to refer to the disputed islands.

While a territorial dispute is subject to discretionary sanctions due to this remedy, any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in these topical areas, after an initial warning.

Passed 9 to 2, 21:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Vacated by motion 12 to 0, 21:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Amendments[edit]

Senkaku islands (February 2022)[edit]

Remedy 7 of the Senkaku Islands case ("Discretionary sanctions") is rescinded. Any actions previously taken in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorization remain in force and are governed by the discretionary sanctions procedure.

Passed 9 to 0 by motion at 22:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions[edit]

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. Unless otherwise specified, the standardised enforcement provision applies to this case. All sanctions issued pursuant to a discretionary sanctions remedy must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku_Islands&oldid=1142656360"