Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Workshop: Difference between revisions
Patar knight (talk | contribs) →Deleting Mongolia during Tang rule: Seems to be a lggitimate redirect |
|||
Line 317: | Line 317: | ||
:'''Comment by others:''' |
:'''Comment by others:''' |
||
::It seems to be a perfectly legitimate redirect. I can see someone wanting to find out about Mongolia during Tang rule. Also, it should stay per [[WP:R#KEEP]] points 2,3, and 5. If [[WP:NPOV]] is a problem, it doesn't apply to redirects per [[WP:R#Neutrality of redirects]]. If you insist on deleting this, try taking it to [[WP:RFD|Redirects for discussion]] later. --[[User:Patar knight|Patar knight]] - <sup>[[User talk:Patar knight|chat]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Patar knight|contributions]]</sub> 13:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:: |
|||
====Template==== |
====Template==== |
Revision as of 13:53, 18 April 2009
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
Motions and requests by the parties
Motion to encompass Caspian blue as "involved" party
(1) The arguably constructive contributions of Caspian blue have been specifically noted by John Vandenberg, FayssalF and Sam Blacketer. However, the context of the following exchange of messages and the off-wiki communication these histories reveal was enough to give me pause.
The subsequent new direction of Teeninvestor's expansive argument at "We need to refocus the debate" persuades me that the polite fiction of an "uninvolved Caspian blue" must be abandoned.
- (diff) 23:21, 27 March 2009 Caspian blue m (98,993 bytes) (→Re:)
- (diff) 23:20, 27 March 2009 Caspian blue (98,962 bytes) (→Re:: r)
- (diff) 22:25, 27 March 2009 Caspian blue m (96,704 bytes) (→Re:)
- (diff) 22:22, 27 March 2009 Caspian blue m (96,551 bytes) (→Re:)
- (diff) 22:21, 27 March 2009 Caspian blue (96,552 bytes) (→Re:) <--- "not limited to this case"?
- (diff) 00:06, 27 March 2009 Caspian blue m (95,696 bytes) (→Re:: gr)
- (diff) 00:05, 27 March 2009 Caspian blue (95,688 bytes) (→Re:)
- (diff) 00:04, 27 March 2009 Caspian blue (95,591 bytes) (→Re:: r)
- (diff) 23:34, 26 March 2009 Caspian blue m (95,269 bytes) (→Re:)
- (diff) 23:32, 26 March 2009 Caspian blue (95,339 bytes) (→Re:: new section)
- (diff) 14:47, 29 March 2009 Caspian blue (16,910 bytes) (→ArbCom: r)
- (diff) 14:44, 29 March 2009 Teeninvestor (16,730 bytes) (→ArbCom)
- (diff) 14:44, 29 March 2009 Teeninvestor (16,715 bytes) (→ArbCom)
- (diff) 21:19, 28 March 2009 Teeninvestor (16,566 bytes) (→ArbCom)
- (diff) 23:43, 27 March 2009 Caspian blue (13,833 bytes) (as for the nationalism)
- (diff) 23:32, 27 March 2009 Caspian blue (13,338 bytes) (r)
- (diff) 23:24, 27 March 2009 Teeninvestor (12,621 bytes) (→ArbCom)
- (diff) 23:22, 27 March 2009 Teeninvestor (12,538 bytes) (→ArbCom)
- (diff) 22:32, 27 March 2009 Caspian blue (12,066 bytes) (r)
- (diff) 22:27, 27 March 2009 Teeninvestor (11,670 bytes) (→ArbCom)
- (diff) 22:26, 27 March 2009 Teeninvestor (11,576 bytes) (→ArbCom)
- (diff) 22:23, 27 March 2009 Teeninvestor (11,309 bytes) (→ArbCom) <--- "not limited to this case"?
- (diff) 22:17, 27 March 2009 Teeninvestor (11,050 bytes) (→ArbCom)
- (diff) 23:40, 26 March 2009 Teeninvestor (6,020 bytes) (→ArbCom)
- (diff) 23:37, 26 March 2009 Teeninvestor (5,909 bytes) (→ArbCom)
- (diff) 21:46, 26 March 2009 Teeninvestor (5,737 bytes) (→ArbCom)
- (diff) 21:44, 26 March 2009 Teeninvestor (5,738 bytes) (→ArbCom)
- (diff) 21:41, 26 March 2009 Teeninvestor (5,561 bytes) (→ArbCom: new section)
The recusal of clerk Tznkai here is better understood as part of an otherwise unexplained backstory or subtext; and this is only superficially illustrated at User talk:Tznkai#Missed the point.
The terse comment about canvassing here by Gunpowder Ma was helpful in calling my attention to problem which, in this instance, has an easy remedy. In order to avoid needless distraction from more important matters, I would encourage ArbCom to overlook anything to do with WP:Canvassing.
In the unique context Caspian blue and Teeninvestor have contrived together, it does not matter that Caspian blue is currently banned for 24-hours. --Tenmei (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- I found it quite laughable, but no more laughable Tenmei's attempt to merge inner asia during the Tang dynasty with salting the earth. I have interacted with Caspian Blue in my research on user:Tenmei's background in a request for some links he could give me, but he has refused my request. I found it strange that user:Tenmei would try to put him in this case; Caspian Blue's testimony was exceedingly favorable to user:Tenmei and negative to myself. In any case, I oppose this motion because user:Caspian Blue was not involved in this "Tang dynasty" dispute.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Would you give evidences that I have contacted Teeninvestor via off-line and I made a conspiracy against you instead of throwing your "mere" speculations and another bad-faith accusation here? Even if I would report your second 3RR violation to AN3 that I witnessed (you knew I was there), that does not mean that I'm involved in this RfAr case because I have nothing to do with which you felt to initiate the case. If the case only focuses on you, I might have been unwillingly involved in, but for this case, no. Given this and your quoting me on the evidence page, you've tried to "use me" to get out of the incivility and disruption accusation by editors in good standing.--Caspian blue 20:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed temporary injunctions
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Questions to the parties
Questions for Teeninvestor
- 1a. On further reflection, are there any of your own words at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty which you would now like to delete or strike-out? --Tenmei 14:49, 31 March
- 1b. If so, why? If not, why not? --Tenmei (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- 2a. On further reflection, are there any of your own words at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty which you would now like to delete or strike-out?
- 2b. If so, why? If not, why not? --Tenmei (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
No I do not wish to strike out any of my words unless an arbitrator can show them to be in violation of wikipedia's policies.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- It takes two to tango is a common idiomatic expression which suggests something in which more than one are paired in an inextricably-related and active manner. The phrase recognizes that there are certain activities which cannot be achieved singly -- like arguing, making love, dancing the tango and editing Wikipedia. I wonder if you might feel inclined to review the "dance" which developed at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty; and in retrospect, I wonder if you might want to re-consider those unhelpful words which continue to be provocative, offensive, insupportable, unnecessary? --Tenmei (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Proposed final decision
Proposals by User:Tenmei
Proposed principles
I notice that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology was opened as an ArbCom case in early December 2008. The substance of the disputes in that ArbCom case are presumptively inapposite, as are those unique steps in an arbitration process which unfolded across the span of months; however, some of the proposed principles adduced from that case do appear to be relevant and applicable here. I see no good reason for reinventing the wheel when slightly modified language is readily available to assist in expediting development and review of the issues in our case. However, "Decorum" and "Avoiding apparent impropriety" seemed sufficiently alike to be combined here.
The conclusory re-statement sentence in "Purpose of Wikipedia" is copied from the first principle at the recently closed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science; and the last two sentences in "Neutrality and Sources" are copied from "Citations" in that same case.
The recently closed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand adduced three principles which bear repeating in our context: "Wikipedia editorial process," "Consensus" and the "Role of the Arbitration Committee." --Tenmei (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas – such as advocacy or propaganda and philosophical, ideological or nationalistic disputes – or to publish or promote original research is prohibited. Expressed in different words, Wikipedia has, as its primary objective, the documentation of human knowledge. In order to do so, it relies on verifiability, neutrality and on existing, reliable sources. --Tenmei (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Neutrality and conflicts of interest
2) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. In particular, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests." Neutrality is non-negotiable and requires that, whatever their personal feelings, all editors must strive to (i) ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and (ii) give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source. Editors may contribute to Wikipedia only if they comply with Wikipedia's key policies. --Tenmei (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Quality of sources
3) Wikipedia articles rely mainly on reliable mainstream secondary sources as these provide the requisite analysis, interpretation and context. For this reason, academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most highly valued sources and are usually the most reliable. In contrast, self-published works, whether by an individual or an organisation, may only be used in limited circumstances and with care. Primary sources may be used to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects of these primary sources. In the event of source disputes, policy requires editors to seek consensus on articles' talk pages; if this fails, the community's Reliable Sources Noticeboard is an appropriate forum for discussion and consensus-building. --Tenmei (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Neutrality and sources
4) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional. Citations should not be used disproportionately to the prominence of the view they are citing or in a manner that conveys undue weight. Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included. --Tenmei (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Use of accounts
5) Creating accounts ("sockpuppetry") or coordinating accounts ("meatpuppetry") to manipulate the consensus process; to create alliances to reinforce a particular point of view, to engage in factional or tactical voting; to create "ownership" of articles; to evade topic bans or blocks; or to otherwise game the system, is prohibited. --Tenmei (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Decorum
6) 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 in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable. All editors should strive to avoid conduct that might appear at first sight to violate policy. Examples include an editor repeatedly editing in apparent coordination with other editors in circumstances which might give rise to reasonable but inaccurate suspicions of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. --Tenmei (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Recidivism
7) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions. --Tenmei (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Wikipedia editorial process
8) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with certain narrow exceptions. --Tenmei (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Consensus
9) 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. --Tenmei (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Role of the Arbitration Committee
10) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors. ArbCom's role extends beyond enforcement of rules to active support of other users in interpretation and application of Wikipedia policies. --Tenmei (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
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.
Deleting Mongolia during Tang rule
1) Mongolia during Tang rule, which is a redirect page, should be deleted. --Tenmei (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- It seems to be a perfectly legitimate redirect. I can see someone wanting to find out about Mongolia during Tang rule. Also, it should stay per WP:R#KEEP points 2,3, and 5. If WP:NPOV is a problem, it doesn't apply to redirects per WP:R#Neutrality of redirects. If you insist on deleting this, try taking it to Redirects for discussion later. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Editors reminded
(4-a) Wikipedia cannot solve any of the national, ethnic, historical, or cultural disputes that exists among the nations and peoples of Asia or any other real-world conflict. What Wikipedia can do is aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict. The contributions of all good-faith editors ensure academic integrity, which must be an indispensable priority because, unlike "simple" incivility, the damage caused by editors misquoting, plagiarizing or editorializing destroys the credibility of our encyclopedia.
- (4-b) Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to utilize reliable sources and to comply with Wikipedia policies such as WP:Verifiability. A functional goal of Wikipedia is ensured to the extent that any users are able to confirm the substance of each article -- which amplifies the functional purpose of our WP:V policy and its corollaries.
- (4-c) Editors are reminded to assume good faith in the contributions of all participants in our Wikipedia project, including those on the other side of the real-world disputes. This goals is furthered by writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary. --Tenmei 20:08, 2 April
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Editors counseled
(5-a) Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counseled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area. Sometimes, editors in this position may best devote some of their knowledge, interest, and effort to creating or editing other articles that may relate to the same broad subject-matter as the dispute, but are less immediately contentious.
- (5-b) For example, an editor whose ethnicity, cultural heritage, or personal interests relate to Group X and who finds himself or herself caught up in edit-warring on an article about a recent war between Group X and Group Y, may wish to disengage from that article for a time and instead focus on a different aspect of the history, civilization, and cultural heritage of Group X. --Tenmei 20:08, 2 April
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
6) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:Teeninvestor
Proposed principles
Foreign-language sources
1) The use of foreign-language sources on wikipedia, when an english source is not available, is allowed. These sources must be provided with basic bibliographical information, but the original text, in the language of the source, is not required in the citations of the source, any more than English-language sources. Wikipedia sourcing policies are to be applied consistently across sources of every language.
If foreign-language sources are to require a page of text for each citation, it would prohibit their use on wikipedia and cause a great loss.
For example, the Ming dynasty article uses a Korean source as well as several Chinese sources, yet the FAC review team did not find it necessary to insist on the original text being put in the citation.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Specific diffs and/or links are needed to help establish a context in which your proposed principle can be seen to fit within a web of Wikipedia core policies. For example, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo adduced a principle of good faith acceptance of references. This presumption in our case is distinguishable by a demonstrated failure to verify and by a concurrent refusal to acknowledge a burden to verify. --Tenmei (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Editors should edit articles they have knowledge of
2) While editors' contributions are welcome anywhere, it is advised that editors should edit wikipedia articles that they have knowledge of. If an editor wishes to edit an article he/she does not have knowledge of, he/she should do research before commenting.
For example, I assume Tenmei is of good faith, but his lack of knowledge in this area has made the debate absolutely untenable. He doesn't understand the subject, and keeps on repeating himself, in a very vextatious way. If he was knowledgable in the subject, perhaps his concerns could be understood.(of course, his dubious understanding of wikipedia policies such as requiring a page of text in the original language for every citation also did not help).
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Specific diffs and/or links are needed to help establish a context in which your proposed principle can be seen to fit within a web of Wikipedia core policies. --Tenmei (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Challengers to WP:RS should do research
2) When challenging a source, editors should a)research and present a source that contradicts the information and b) point out what they think is wrong with the source.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Specific diffs and/or links are needed to help establish a context in which your proposed principle can be seen to fit within a web of Wikipedia core policies. --Tenmei (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
User Tenmei violated WP:POINT
1) User:Tenmei has violated WP:POINT in his attempt to merge Inner Asia during the Tang dynasty with the Salting the earth article. He is advised to refrain from such vandalism in the future, as shown here:diff
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Specific diffs and/or links would help to clarify and amplify your proposed finding. --Tenmei (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
"5000 years" source reliable
2) Due to the fact the "5000 years" source used by Teeninvestor has been provided with a link and standard bibliographic information, and have not yet showed any errors, it is deemed to be a reliable source. For example, PericlesOfAthens, a very respected editor has shown it to be correct here:diff . In addition, a link has been provided diff
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Specific diffs and/or links would help to clarify and amplify proposed finding. --Tenmei (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
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.
User:Tenmei should make himself clear
1) Whatever the outcome I feel user:Tenmei should try to simplify his language, so it can fit in with WP:TLDR. His language is highly confusing and does not convey the message he wants. He is very difficult to understand. It is not just me who thinks so; see this post by another editor in 3O: diff
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
User:Tenmei should learn WP:CIVIL
2) User:Tenmei has shown himself unable to assume WP:CIVIL As he entered the debate, the first thing he used to describe other editors was "toxic warrior". In addition, he strikes out others' comments, a highly unpolite gesture on wikipedia. His attempted "merge" with salting the earth was almost pure vandalism. these links can illustrate my concerns: link [diff diff diff diff
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
User:Tenmei should not abuse the dispute resolution process
Rather than gaining consensus, User:Tenmei has abused the dispute resolution process in order to get his way. He should be warned to cease and desist from this activity as this simply hounds other editors and is a form of disruption. My concerns can be show by the following links: diff diff Other users' concerns about him abusing the dispute resolution process: diff diff
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposals by User:Z
Proposed principles
Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed remedies
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.
Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
General discussion
Prior ArbCom cases
In 2008-2009, issues similar to the ones in our case were subjected to ArbCom scrutiny.
In terms of our case, (a) there appears to be little congruence between the encyclopedic topics above and our case; and (b) there appears to be no duplication amongst the parties. The sole relevant similarities in the locus of dispute appear to be Mongolia and issues having to do with ensuring the academic integrity of Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty and the reliability of Wikipedia generally. --Tenmei (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Restatement: What does "verifiability" mean?
I have done everything I can to bring core policies to the forefront of my participation in Wikipedia. Rather than succeeding in this effort, I appear to have failed in all efforts to invite Teeninvestor to engage meaningfully in parsing any core issues.
The nine true/false questions which follow were derived from text at Wikipedia:Citing sources#When to cite sources:
- True___ False ___ A. Wikipedia is by its very nature a work by people with widely different knowledge and skills?
- True___ False ___ B. The reader needs to be assured that the material within it is reliable?
- True___ False ___ C. Each fact in an article must be concretely verifiable = WP:V?
The purpose of citing sources is:
- True___ False ___ D. To ensure that the content of articles can be checked by any reader or editor?
- True___ False ___ E. To show that your edit is not original research and to reduce editorial disputes?
- True___ False ___ F. To avoid claims of plagiarism and copying?
- True___ False ___ G. To help users find additional information on the topic?
- True___ False ___ H. To ensure that material about living persons complies with biography policy?
- True___ False ___ I. To improve the credibility of Wikipedia?
I construe it as fundamental that the answer to every one of the above-listed true/false questions has to be the same; and at the same time, it seems fair to conclude that Teeninvestor is asserting principles and policies which quite at variance with what I would have described as self-evident, obvious, easy.
What parts of the above are inessential? optional? unimportant?
This is not a set of rhetorical questions; rather, this seems to have evolved into a needlessly difficult set of practical problems. For example, conflating unverifiable ≠ unverified presents a straw man controversy in our context.
Bottom line: In the face of the chasm between my answers to the true/false questions above and the analysis Teeninvestor expressly espouses, the question for me becomes one of figuring out what to respond differently, more effectively, more constructively than I have managed to do thus far. --Tenmei (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Verifiability archives
Questions about the use of non-English sources in ways which are consistent with WP:V are the subject of the following archived discussion threads:
|
The following threads focus on WP:V issues using Dutch, Norwegian, and French sources:
These links may be plausibly relevant or useful in the process of resolving the issues presented by our case. --Tenmei (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
{topic}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others: