Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Workshop

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.

Select revision history of User talk:Teeninvestor

• (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)

Select revision history of User talk:Caspian blue

• (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

1st 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)

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)

Looking back, are you unwilling or unable to identify one or more instances in which handling something differently might have mitigated any element of the dispute which has now become an ArbCom case? --Tenmei (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

In the clarified context established by yesterday's diffs -- see PericlesofAthens explains and Penwale explains -- I can only encourage you to look more closely at this carefully parsed question. I can only urge you to re-think and re-write some of what you have thus far contributed here and elsewhere in the record of this ArbCom case. --Tenmei (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to Tenmei

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)

2nd questions for Teeninvestor

Re: "Consensus reached at subject article"
Teeninvestor -- As you know, you actually offer no evidence in the first section of "Evidence presented by Teeninvestor." As you may not know, what you have offered can't withstand closer scrutiny. The phrases do flow together well, but on closer inspection, the insubstantial nature of these allegations is revealed, e.g.,

• Allegation 1: "deleted without explanation by Tenmei and others"

The complaint in this phrase is addressed in detail at "Evidence presented by Tenmei" (Asserting RfA "Issue #1"); but in addition, this reported wrong-doing doesn't match up easily with your claims about consensus-building consensus. Without more detail, the assertions about unexplained deletions and about engaging a viable consensus would seem likely to flow from contradictory or mutually exclusive narratives. It is only reasonable to ask for a little amplification.

Question: What specifically was "deleted without explanation by Tenmei and others"?

• Allegation 2: "solicited a 3O from other editors"

The neutral, disinterested voice anticipated by Wikipedia:Third opinion doesn't appear to embrace pointed comments by those with whom you have already established on-going, collaborative working relationships. How can it not be construed as misleading when you mischaracterize the plainly supportive comments of Pericles of Athens and Arilang ? It is only reasonable to ask for a little clarification.

Question: Other than these two friends, who did you mean to include within "3O from other editors"?

• Allegation 3: "working with existing editors"

The logical inconsistency of this claim in the context created above is already suggested; but in addition, an inevitable corollary question becomes "who?" Who were the existing editors with whom you worked effectively? The edit history of Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty includes a limited number of contributors. It is only reasonable to ask for a little more specificity.

Question: Who participated in the exchange of views which becomes the hallmark of "working with existing editors"?

• A Nobody
• Addbot --BOT
• Amalthea
• Arilang1234
• Enerelt
• Fritzpoll
• Dream Focus
• Gantuya eng
• G Purevdorj
• GenuineMongol
• Ikip
• JL-Bot --BOT
• Kraftlos
• Kralizec!
• Nishkid64
• PericlesofAthens
• RussBot --BOT
• Sarsfs
• SmackBot --BOT
• Teeninvestor

• Tenmei
• The Black Void
• Yaan
• Zeborah
• 立足东方
• 68.160.246.158]
• 69.86.119.207
• 76.66.193.90
• 141.155.150.240
• 141.155.153.147
• 141.155.157.221
• 141.155.149.45
• 162.83.131.138
• 162.83.135.20
• 162.83.161.11
• 162.84.134.66
• 162.84.136.193
• 162.84.136.193
• 162.84.138.103
• 162.84.161.162

• Allegation 4: "helped form a consensus"

The logical inconsistency of this claim is already indicated; but this allegation also implies a need to inquire about "how" and "when" in addition to "who?" How and when did this consensus evolve? Who helped you in the teamwork implied by "consensus"? It is only reasonable to ask for a little explanation.

Question: How and when did the the elements of agreement fall into place as you "helped form a consensus"?

• Allegation 5: "consensus not accepted by Tenmei"

The logical inconsistency of this claim is already demonstrated; but this allegation also implies a need to inquire about "what" in addition to "how" and "when" and "who?" It is only reasonable to ask a little elaboration.

Question: What did you intend to be understood as the "consensus not accepted by Tenmei"?

Do you want ArbCom to decide that these questions have become moot because, "as of now, a consensus has been achieved at Inner Asia during the Tang dynasty, and the edit history is evidence"?

If so, before this case is closed, will you please answer one more question having to do with this general topic? I don't know what you meant in the following diff

• 16:16, 15 March Teeninvestor posted "You JUST VIOLATED WP:CONSENSUS, MY friend."

Question: How did I violate WP:Consensus?

Teeninvestor -- If anything in this set of questions causes you to re-think what you have presented as evidence, I would not object to any modification or changes you might want to make. Please feel free to edit anything you have posted thus far.

If this is not the appropriate or best place for questions like these, I will re-post them somewhere else. --Tenmei (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Teeninvestor -- Please do not find renewed cause for offense as I state plainly that your response was not helpful to me. Please, will you help me understand your explicit point-of-view by answering directly?

Question: How did I violate WP:Consensus on March 15, 2009? -- diff

Please recognize that I'm only looking for a little amplification, clarification, specificity, explanation or elaboration in whatever manner you see fit. Rejecting my question is non-responsive. Changing the subject is non-responsive. Conflating a simple question with other issues is non-responsive. Argument is non-responsive.

The text which you have mis-labeled "response" repeats a now familiar stonewalling strategy. The following excerpt at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty#Intentional disruption is only one instance of an oft-repeated gambit which did succeed in frustrating meaningful dialogue:

• (diff) + (diff) -- Teeninvestor

• (diff) -- Tenmei

• (diff) -- Teeninvestor

• (diff) -- Tenmei

• (diff) -- Teeninvestor

For redundant emphasis, I re-state a few measured sentences which you were unwilling or unable to acknowledge more than a month ago. They are no less reasonable, no less necessary today. To refresh your memory, these plain words were expressed in the last three sentences of just one diff.

• Now that I've demonstrated by example, perhaps it will help to encourage yet again to respond to the specific comments, suggestions and questions which have been directed to you ....

• I have responded seriatim and perhaps you could do the same.

• I have responded in a way which I hope can be characterized as thoughtful and perhaps you can do the same.

In mid-March, you used ALL CAPS in the diff which followed these non-confrontational words; but I would guess that, in retrospect, the effectiveness of those ALL CAPS is diminished by the spotlight this ArbCom venue provides.

You have asked a rhetorical question below; and perhaps it will be useful to show what a direct answer to your question looks like:

Question: Okay, Tenmei have you learned anything from your previous experiences?

Answer: Yes.

Teeninvestor -- For redundant emphasis, please answer directly.

Question: How did I violate WP:Consensus on March 15, 2009? -- diff

Answer: ...?

The effectiveness of a non-responsive gambit is diminished by the spotlight this ArbCom venue provides. --Tenmei (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

In the clarified context established by yesterday's diffs -- see PericlesofAthens explains and Penwale explains -- I can only encourage you to look more closely at this carefully parsed question. I can only urge you to re-think and re-write some of what you have thus far contributed here and elsewhere in the record of this ArbCom case. --Tenmei (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to Tenmei

Okay, Tenmei have you learned anything from your previous experiences? We had already a consensus before you reached Arbitration. We had a consensus, the material in the article is correct, source is verifiable(because of link). And you have yet to disprove that! So far all you have been is disruptive to editors' work, similar to the Hyuga dispute. And please, talk in plain english. No one can understand you. Check my diffs and you will see what I mean.

Please. So far you have made an arbitration case over basically nothing. You haven't shown the source to be unverifiable, you haven't shown the content to be incorrect, (but you have showed a lot of bad behaviour, even vandalizing articles. Teeninvestor (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

3rd questions for Teeninvestor

Re: "Alleged misuse of sources"
Teeninvestor -- As you know, you actually offer no evidence in the second section of "Evidence presented by Teeninvestor." As you may not know, what you have offered can't withstand closer scrutiny.

An unsatisfactory aspect of this ArbCom case is underscored in the extent to which the parties seem to be arguing past each other without directly engaging in a dispute about specifics. I leave it to others to draw reasonable conclusions based on observation.

I would be disinclined to argue the proposition that you are unwilling or unable to engage in collaborative work towards a constructive resolution of this ArbCom case. I infer that your gambits are informed by experiences in which a feigned inability to understand was affirmed (or seemed to be affirmed) by the wiki-community, validated as an acceptable tactic ....

The initial sentence of the second section of "Evidence presented by Teeninvestor" encompasses two logical fallacies. You announce, "I feel that the "alleged misuse of sources" is overhyped." Perhaps you misconstrue: WP:V = "misuse of sources"?

Although Franco-Mongol_alliance and PHG do investigate matters which could be described as "misuse of sources" -- see' "Prior ArbCom cases" -- no such allegations have been introduced about parties in this ArbCom case.

One fallacy in you opening sentence sentence has to do with insubstantial allegations which can't be rebutted because they were never made; and another fallacy has to do with the "over-hyped" nature of the chimeric allegations which were never made. This section is populated by such logical fallacies. In your prose in this sub-section, I see little more than a crowd of straw men. In the unique context you alone have contrived, I present a deceptively simple question to you:

Question: Are you unwilling or unable to present evidence in a form which allows a reasoned response?

Re: "Tenmei has yet to show my source is unverifiable"

The heading of this sentence presumes the logical fallacy that Tenmei has somehow accepted the burden of proving that something is unverifiable; and the sentence further presumes that the process of providing such proof has been dilatory. Neither of these assumptions can be shown to have any foundation in the context of this ArbCom case.

Although I am gratified to note that you've adopted elements of my research at "Restatement: What does "verifiability' mean?", this ArbCom case would be better served by your answers to questions which were to have been construed as within the crux of our dispute. The nine true/false questions which follow were derived from text at Wikipedia:Citing sources#When to cite sources:

• 1. True___ False ___ A. Wikipedia is by its very nature a work by people with widely different knowledge and skills?
• 2. True___ False ___ B. The reader needs to be assured that the material within it is reliable?
• 3. True___ False ___ C. Each fact in an article must be concretely verifiable = WP:V?

The purpose of citing sources is:

• 4. True___ False ___ D. To ensure that the content of articles can be checked by any reader or editor?
• 5. True___ False ___ E. To show that your edit is not original research and to reduce editorial disputes?
• 6. True___ False ___ F. To avoid claims of plagiarism and copying?
• 7. True___ False ___ G. To help users find additional information on the topic?
• 8. True___ False ___ H. To ensure that material about living persons complies with biography policy?
• 9. True___ False ___ I. To improve the credibility of Wikipedia?

In your prose in this sub-section, I see little more than a crowd of straw men. In the unique context you alone have contrived, I present a deceptively simple question to you:

Question: Are you unwilling or unable to present evidence in a form which allows a reasoned response?

Re: "Screened by PericlesofAthens and Penwhale"

The central logical fallacy in this section is clarified by the very familiar first paragraph of the explanatory text at WP:V:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

Even if it were ascertainable what "screened" by PericlesofAthens and Penwhale" means or implies, it would be beside the point of this ArbCom case, which is in part about re-visiting a wiki-policy maxim that truth ≠ verifiability. Your gambit is simply off-topic ....

The fact-of-the-matter is that the only thing PericlesofAthens and Penwhale have actually confirmed is that the book exists on a publisher's web page -- here; which is the very same thing that I expressly confirmed with a link in my first comment about this dubious source -- here.

• See "Investigating what "screened" by PericlesofAthens means or implies"; PericlesofAthens explains
• See "Whether it is a chinese history book or not" -- diff
• See diff + "Investigating what "screened" by Penwhale means or implies" -- diff; Penwale explains
• See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Evidence: "Asserting RfA 'Issue #3'" -- link

In your prose in this sub-section, I see little more than a crowd of straw men. In the unique context you alone have contrived, I present a deceptively simple question to you:

Question: Are you unwilling or unable to present evidence in a form which allows a reasoned response?

Teeninvestor -- Again ... as above, If anything in this analysis causes you to re-think what you have presented as evidence in this section or elsewhere, I would not object to any modification or changes you might want to make. I would have thought it constructive to suggest that the effectiveness of a non-responsive gambit is diminished by the spotlight this ArbCom venue provides.--Tenmei (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

In the clarified context established by yesterday's diffs -- see PericlesofAthens explains and Penwale explains -- I can only encourage you to look more closely at this carefully parsed question. I can only urge you to re-think and re-write some of what you have thus far contributed here and elsewhere in the record of this ArbCom case. --Tenmei (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to Tenmei

Yet again Tenmei shows he does not understand WP:V. WP:V only states that a source should be third-party and reliable and cited correctly, which this source fulfills. For more details see my evidence section.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

4th questions for Teeninvestor

Re: "Tenmei's behaviour"
Teeninvestor -- As you know, you actually offer no evidence in the third section of "Evidence presented by Teeninvestor." As you may not know, what you have offered can't withstand closer scrutiny. In the context you alone contrived, I must ask myself one question which requires a priori resolution:

Tenmei's Question:What does anything to do with "Tenmei's behaviour" have to do with Issues #1, #2, #3 and #4 which were identified as the central reason for this ArbCom case to be opened?

Tenmei's Answer: This attempted focus on "Tenmei's behaviour" has nothing to do with Issues #1, #2, #3 or #4 -- except as a some kind of smokescreen-gambit in which useful answers to useful questions might be set aside and ignored while a more interesting investigation meanders forward in the same way that WP:AN/I often seems to unfold. If this analysis is valid, then the decision to offer no response at all is the only practical thing to do.

Teeninvestor -- if you can explain why I should answer this threshold question differently, I will begin the process of developing seriatim responses to the issues and diffs you have posted.

In your prose in this sub-section, I see little more than a crowd of straw men. In the unique context you alone have contrived, I present a deceptively simple question to you:

Question: Are you unwilling or unable to present evidence in a form which allows a reasoned response?

Teeninvestor -- Again ... as above, if anything in this analysis causes you to re-think what you have presented as evidence in this section or elsewhere, I would not object to any modification or changes you might want to make. --Tenmei (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to Tenmei

I was hoping Tenmei could see his errors in the proof provided in this section, but it seems he has decided to continue with his obstinacy. His actions, above, show the need for the section "Tenmei's behaviour". Arbitrators take care.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

1st question for Tenmei

The following was copied from User talk:Tenmei.

I find it hilarious that you accuse me of violating WP:V. Would you please explain to me on my talk page what are the requirements you think a source with WP:V has that this source doesn't???Teeninvestor (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

comment By that date a consensus had already been formed that as long as my sources are cited and they were confirmed by others(which is what happened) to be reputable, it was more or less effective. However, you continued to remove material from the article without consensus. This is a pattern demonstrated by you at Hyuga as well, where you removed material that was placed with consensus. Also note you didn't answer my question: Do you understand WP:V?Teeninvestor (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to Teeninvestor

Thank you for your question. I would have thought that I was addressing that very issue with what I have already written; but please be reassured that I will attempt to re-formulate my thoughts in different words. I prefer to post that response in this ArbCom venue where others may follow the growth of threads we are developing together.

While I work on this restatement, may I take this opportunity to encourage your response to any on or more of the several questions I have thus far presented on this page? --Tenmei (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Teeninvestor -- As you know, others are following the growth of threads we are developing together.

They may be as interested as I am in your response to a relatively straight-forward, threshold inquiry. For redundant emphasis, please allow me to ask you to answer directly.

Question: How did I violate WP:Consensus on March 15, 2009? -- diff

Answer: ...?

This question is not rhetorical. I simply do not understand how any violation of WP:Consensus could be adduced from the edit histories which developed up through March 15; and unless you explain, I have no way to figure out what you meant.

As I work on crafting a response to the question you've posed above, I can only invite you to re-consider how your continuing non-response might be perceived. --Tenmei (talk) 17:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: For easier reading, I have moved the Comment which Teeninvestor positioned here in "my" section. Instead, it now appears above in "his/her" section. Nothing was changed except the location of the text. Unlike the serial formatting which is conventional on talk pages, this ArbCom format appears to be organized to be a somewhat different fashion -- see #1 at top of this page. --Tenmei (talk) 17:55, 25 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)

I disagree with Patar knight for the following reasons (which GenuineMongol, Yaan and I have partly already stated on Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. Thus I’m not a registered party of this arbitration process, but have been one during the early discussion about this article):

• “Mongolia during Tang rule” was an anachronism from the outset. It was created (as is probably agreed upon by now) by Ms./Mr. Anonymous in an attempt to show that Mongolia always has been part of China. See here. The Mongols were a tribal confederation created in the 12th century, and before that time the word cannot apply from a historical perspective. Its continuing existence perpetuates the intention of its creator.
• The deletion of this redirect page is not prevented by WP:R#Neutrality of redirects because this guideline suggests the deletion of redirects that aren’t common terms.
• The deletion is not prevented by the fact that the term “Mongolia” has a non-historical use. Most people mean the Mongolian state when talking of Mongolia, thus also “Mongolia”, and they do not mean Greater Mongolia. But the military campaigns described in Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty took place in modern day Southern Mongolia (“Inner Mongolia” by the common English term), Dzungaria (part of Western Greater Mongolia), and several parts of Middle Asia that never had a Mongol population. Thus, even if someone comes up with the somewhat bizarre idea that she wants to learn something about what happened in modern-day Mongolia during the days when the Tang state was an eminent power in Middle Asia, this article doesn’t offer ANY information –if the article happens to be complete in this respect, (modern-day) “Mongolia during the Tang dynasty” and the actual “Inner Asia during the Tang dynasty” are topics that don’t have any overlapping localization in geographic space.
• What about Wikipedia:R#KEEP? 2 doesn’t apply because the creation of an article of such a name is not accidental, but purposeful spreading of bias, and will therefore only be undertaken by people who do know what they do. 3 doesn’t apply as shown above. 5 does apply, but only to Ms./Mr. Anonymous and her/his ink, because this redirect may potentially misinform users without previous knowledge.

G Purevdorj (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

In response to G Purevdorj,

• It was created by a POV-pushing account, but I fail to see why the redirect cannot be useful. If someone wanted to search for the history of the current, geographical area of Mongolia during Tang rule, the redirect would help them get to the article they wanted, the one on Inner Asia.
• At WP:R#Neutrality of redirects, it states that "If a redirect is not an established term and is unlikely to be used by searchers, it is unlikely to be useful and may reasonably be nominated for deletion." It may not be a well established term, but I can see how it can be used by searchers interested in Asian history.
• But there will still be some people who will use Mongolia to mean Greater Mongolia, to whom the redirect would be helpful. Even if they just meant to search for historical events in the modern day nation of Mongolia during the Tang dynasty, the article seems to offer at least some information. Places mentioned in the article which seem to fall at least partially within present-day Mongolia's boundaries would include: the Gobi Desert, Eastern Gokturks Empire, Orkhon River, Khangai Mountains, and the Uyghur Khaganate.
• The 2nd point at WP:R#KEEP, would apply, because if it was deleted, some editor might see the lack of an article, and write one which would run parallel to the Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty article, in either good or bad faith. Also, due to neutrality concerns with the redirect, the resulting article might be more objectionable than the current one we have. Rationale for 3rd point covered above. The 5th point would also apply, since people are more likely to search using a familiar term (i.e. "Mongolia duing Tang rule") than using more obscure terms (i.e. "Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty").

--Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"The second Göktürk Kaghanate" was centered in Mongolia alright, but the article doesn't focus on action that took place there. So I still fear very much that a careless reader who finds this article via such a redirect will get a wrong impression on the main direction of Tang expansion qua that redirect. G Purevdorj (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well better that the reader gets a sense of periphery events mildly related to their search, then no information at all. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:51, 19 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:

Comment by Tenmei: 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 Teeninvestor: How was this unverified? You have yet to state why this whole dispute came about. You still haven't said how this is unverifiable!!!!Teeninvestor (talk) 21:51, 24 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:

Comment by Tenmei: 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:

Comment by Tenmei: 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:

Comment by Tenmei: 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:

Comment by Tenmei: Specific diffs and/or links would help to clarify and amplify proposed finding. --Tenmei (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC) This proposed finding of fact should be stricken. This topic is addressed more generally here and here; and for redundant clarity, the diffs are explicit below:

• A. March 16 -- diff: Teeninvestor claims that text was verified -- simple past tense
• B. March 27 -- diff: not verified
• C. April 8 -- diff: not verified
• D. April 22 -- diff: not verified by PericlesofAthens
• E. April 22 -- diff: not verified by Penwhale

Teeninvestor's claims about the would-be imprimatur of other editors were not accurate; nor have citations attributed to this source been validated in a manner consistent with the minimal standards of WP:V. For these reasons, this proposed finding of fact should be discarded.--Tenmei (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In a number of articles other than this one, Teeninvestor has contributed many citations from this dubious source:

• Li Bo, Zheng Yin, "5000 years of Chinese history", Inner Mongolian People's publishing corp , ISBN 7-204-04420-7, 2001.

It may be relevant that Teeninvestor's singular reliance on this one book has inspired no notice in some articles; and in other instances, it has caused dispute threads focused on WP:V and WP:Synthesis, e.g.,

• Comparison between Roman and Han Empires
• Talk:Comparison between Roman and Han Empires
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between Roman and Han Empires
• Wikiversity: Comparison between Roman and Han Empires
• Economy of the Ming Dynasty
• Hua-Yi distinction
• Mongol invasion of China
• Qing and Yuan Dynasties debate
• Talk:Qing and Yuan Dynasties debate

I would suggest that unanticipated consequences may flow from this proposed finding of fact; and this should be a factor in ArbCom's decision-making. --Tenmei (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Comment by Taemyr: A source can not be deemed reliable or not independent on the facts it is used to source. Taemyr (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

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

He just showed below how he can't make himself clear.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by Tenmei: This specific proposed remedy should be stricken. The proposal incorporates a logical fallacy. Teeninvestor contrives a false dichotomy in an effort to distract attention from a more central problem.

The idiomatic common sense which is implied in "it takes two to tango" ignores other dances; and yet, on further reflection, it becomes evident that not every collaborative activity is best compared to a tango rather than some other dance. The idiom does recognize that there are certain activities which cannot be achieved singly -- like communicating and like editing Wikipedia. This idiomatic expression -- like Teeninvestor's proposal -- presumes it is irrelevant to parse a collaborative activity.

The proposal begins with a faulty premise -- presuming that it is irrelevant to investigate whether Teeninvestor is unwilling or unable to work collaboratively.

Assuming arguendo that my writing is unconventional, non-standard -- then what? The nature of Teeninvestor's commitment to partnership in communication would remain critical regardless of whether I succeeded entirely -- or failed utterly, or whether I partly failed and partly succeeded in shouldering my share of burdens in the work of editing Wikipedia?

"Inability" to work collaboratively

In the absence of diffs which document and confirm attempts by Teeninvestor to resolve a perceived inability to work collaboratively with Tenmei and others, this proposal is naught but hollow words. If, as this proposal implies, the overwhelming problems are to be adduced from my writing, then these proofs would have accumulated along with the serial evidence of Teeninvestor's requests for for a little amplification, clarification, specificity, explanation or elaboration. A record barren of requests for clarification or explanation is revealing; and Teeninvestor contribution history stands on its own, regardless of anything and everything I will have done. Curiously, Teeninvestor alone manages to disprove the legitimacy of his/her meaningless allegation.

"Unwillingness" to work collaboratively

In a search for evidence of Teeninvestor's unwillingness to work collaboratively with Tenmei and others, the demonstrative examples are manifold:

• Asserting RfA "Issue #1"
• Asserting RfA "Issue #2"
• Asserting RfA "Issue #3"
• Asserting RfA "Issue #4"
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Workshop (1st questions for Teeninvestor)

The argument about "unwillingness" to work collaboratively is condensed in the illustrative diffs presented in a thread found elsewhere on this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Workshop (2nd questions for Teeninvestor)
  • Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty#Intentional disruption

In the above-listed threads, Teeninvestor created problems which did not need to be problems; and Teeninvestor exacerbated problems which could have been mitigated. In the context created by Teeninvestor's contributions, the edit history shows a perverse campaign to ensure that collaborative communication failed; and this series of diffs which were undertaken to achieve an arguably disruptive goal is more fully documented in the edit histories which preceded the opening of this ArbCom case:

• Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty
• Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring -- diff? deleted by Teeninvestor
• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty

For these reasons, this specific proposal should be discarded. --Tenmei (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Codicil: Yes, in this diff, Teeninvestor is demonstrably unwilling -- which implies a mere matter of choice, as in

• "If I had known how vextatious this guy was ..., I probably should have went to mediation instead."
• "I'm just going to state my argument and then not pay attention to it for a while; I doubt anything will be done ...."
• "I have every confidence I will win this debate .... Strength in consensus!.

This proposal has little or nothing to do with unable or inability to make sense out of my writing -- little to do with me at all.

Teeninvestor is not shown to be unwilling to engage in collaborative work; rather, we may infer that his/her arguments here and elsewhere are informed by experiences in which a feigned inability to understand appeared to be affirmed by the wiki-community, validated as an plausibly acceptable tactic ....

Q.E.D. --Tenmei (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to Caspian blue: In this ArbCom case, Caspian blue is not shown to be unwilling to engage in collaborative work; rather, we may infer that his/her arguments here and elsewhere are informed by experiences in which a feigned inability to understand appears to be affirmed by the wiki-community, validated as an plausibly acceptable tactic ....

Acknowledging and responding seriatim to his/her comment below:

• Unintelligible ...? No -- this assessment only arises in the context of specifics.
• Uncivil ...? No -- this assessment only arises in the context of specifics.
• No actual point ...? No -- any reasonable foundation for this kind of assessment is only discerned and evaluated after an arguable demonstration that it arises from something other than Caspian blue's unwillingess to try to understand.

As with Teeninvestor, when Caspian blue takes it on himself/herself to complain about my communication skills, there is a logical next step which is too often overlooked in Wikipedia venues. WP:AGF doesn't automatically create any presumption in the context of complaining, nor does it relieve Caspian blue of all burdens of proof, burdens of persuasion, burdens of production, etc.

In the discussion which preceded the opening of this ArbCom case, we do see evidence of Caspian blue's ability and willingness to engage difficult issues directly. The helpful participation of Caspian blue has been specifically noted by John Vandenberg, FayssalF and Sam Blacketer.

In this quite different venue, I note that Caspian blue sees fit to characterize almost all of my statements in a negative light. However, that word "almost" suggests that there might be a way to crack open a window of opportunity? --Tenmei (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Caspian blue -- NO.

Responding seriatim:

1. No -- no words were deleted or "altered" in your commentary ... and I reject your bickering strategy

2. Yes -- an error swallowed your work, but it was restored promptly -- see diff

3. No -- there was no "personal attack" ... and I reject your patellar reflex indignation tactic

4. No -- response not deleted; only moved to comply with instruction #1 at top of page -- see diff

5. No -- the phrase "another but typical personal attacks" is like noise (economic)?

6. No -- the phrase "behaviors make me to have been hesitant" is like signal noise?

7. No -- the phrase "first attack editors instead of focusing contents" is like image noise

8. No -- the phrase "strike or delete the attack" is like noise (audio)

9. No -- the phrase "does not even stop such disruption on this public space" is like noise (video)

Suggestion: Think again.

• 1 (diff) 20:31, 25 April 2009 Tenmei (talk | contribs) (98,625 bytes) (→User:Tenmei should make himself clear: window of opportunity?)
• 2 (diff) 20:33, 25 April 2009 Tenmei (talk | contribs) m (96,431 bytes) (→User:Tenmei should make himself clear)
• 3 (diff) 20:39, 25 April 2009 Tenmei (talk | contribs) (99,050 bytes) (→User:Tenmei should make himself clear: restoring Caspian blue's comment which was deleted in error?)
• 4 (diff) 20:40, 25 April 2009 Caspian blue (talk | contribs) (99,341 bytes) (rv Tenmei, why did you remove my comment? Beside, do not alter others' comment by your taste. Stop being disruptive.)
• 5 (diff) 20:48, 25 April 2009 Tenmei (talk | contribs) (98,970 bytes) (→User:Tenmei should make himself clear: conforming to instruction #1 at top of page --see edit history; note that Caspian blue's comment which was deleted in error) (undo)
• 6 (diff) 20:49, 25 April 2009 Tenmei (talk | contribs) m (98,969 bytes) (→User:Tenmei should make himself clear: shouldn't it be "Comment by Caspian blue"?) (undo)
• 7 (diff) 20:51, 25 April 2009 Caspian blue (talk | contribs) (99,443 bytes) (→User:Tenmei should make himself clear: don't touch my comment any more; you're not a clerk. Do not engage in making personal attacks. All of your behaviors are recorded.) (undo)
• 8 (diff) 20:55, 25 April 2009 Caspian blue (talk | contribs) (100,120 bytes) (→User:Tenmei should make himself clear: diffs) (undo)
• 9 (diff) 21:03, 25 April 2009 Caspian blue (talk | contribs) (100,390 bytes) (→User:Tenmei should make himself clear: tweak) (undo)
• 10 (diff) 21:16, 25 April 2009 Caspian blue (talk | contribs) m (100,500 bytes) (→User:Tenmei should make himself clear: Abide by the rule) (undo)

Restatement for redundant pedagogical effect: Your gambit is over-reaching. It's like "beating a dead horse;" and if you don't understand this phrase, click on the link and learn about a commonly-used English idioms.

I might suggest that your time could be better invested? I wonder if it will help if I freely admit that I haven't yet figured out how to deal with the serial tempests in a teapot you contrive. As we all know, opportunities to pounce on mistakes which inevitably creep into editing are commonplace. In such context, don't doubt that I am able to learn lessons the hard way, albeit slowly. --Tenmei (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

According to Advice for editing Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration; Remain civil, Be succinct in your comments. Long, rambling additions are less effective. Please keep these, almost all of Tenmei's statements are unintelligible and uncivil with no actual point.--Caspian blue 18:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

My above comment was altered[1][2] and then deleted[3][4] by Tenmei several times. Tenmei is not allowed to do so because he is not an ArbCom clerk. Moreover the editor made another but typical personal attacks[5] against me (but deleted and soon restored it). That kind of behaviors and his history of harassment make me have been very hesitant to give my evidence here. He first attacks editors without reason instead of focusing contents, and repeats altering others' comment, striking, deleting or restoring his "own" attacks for whatever reason. Full circle of disruption. He does not even stop such disruption on this public space. Moreover, the comment would be better for reservation if I make a proposal against Tenmei? Bear in mind that this thread is raised by Teeninvestor, so I gave my comment in agreement with Teeninvestor's suggestion. Abide by the ArbCom rule--Caspian blue 20:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The Evidence page, as well as the comments above, can show what I mean by User:Tenmei's persistent disruption. Instead of seeking consensus, he uses the dispute resolution system to get his way, just like in the Hyuga class dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by Tenmei: Several of Teeninvestor phrases need a little amplification, clarification, specificity, explanation or elaboration. I don't understand

• "... in order to get his way."

This phrase implies that Teeninvestor perceives a pattern which can be illustrated with specific diffs. Teeninvestor is seen to acknowledge that I am pursuing demonstrable objectives in this ArbCom case; and I perceive an unstated innuendo, perhaps suggesting these goals have insidious, pernicious or other deleterious aspects. If so, fine -- this is a venue in which explicit analysis and diffs are necessary. Please provide such analysis and diffs relating to this ArbCom case. In the absence of a meaningful response, this phrase should be stricken as meaningless.

• "... as this simply hounds other editors ...."

This phrase implies that Teeninvestor perceives a pattern which can be illustrated with specific diffs. Teeninvestor accuses me of pursuing demonstrable objectives which are unrelated to what I have identified as Issues #1, #2, #3 and #4 in this ArbCom case. If so, persistent harassment or a subtle kind of wiki-hounding needs further analysis and diffs. Please provide such analysis and diffs relating to this ArbCom case. In the absence of a meaningful response, this phrase should be stricken as meaningless.

• "... and is a form of disruption."

This phrase implies that Teeninvestor perceives a pattern which can be illustrated with specific diffs. Please provide such analysis and diffs relating to this ArbCom case. In the absence of a meaningful response, this phrase should be stricken as meaningless.

As Teeninvestor well knows, there are no diffs to be found ... but the words are not meaningless.

No. The fact-of-the matter is that we all learn from our experience; and Teeninvestor has learned that this epithet/innuendo-attack does effectively manage to soil what he/she sees only as some kind of adversary in some kind of zero-sum game. Anticipating Teeninvestor failure to provide diffs, I declare in a forthright manner:

• NO. Teeninvestor's epithet/innuendo-attack gambit is abusive.
• NO. In this ArbCom context, it should be acknowledged as regrettable and inappropriate that the epithet/innuendo-tactic works as well as it does in WP:AN/I and other contexts.
• NO. In this ArbCom context, the epithet/innuendo-strategy needs to be declared intolerable, unacceptable, wrong. --Tenmei (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

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.

• Franco-Mongol_alliance
• PHG

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)

Graphic representation of dispute

For ArbCom purposes, the red circle represents what Tenmei construes to be Teeninvestor view of what makes up a "good" wiki-article -- including full compliance with wiki-community policies/standards. Irrelevancies are perhaps described by everything outside the ambit of the red line -- the green circle perhaps representing whatever-it-is Tenmei's diffs are failing to state succinctly; and the blue line perhaps representing the variable axis of Tenmei's unhelpful disruptions?

Note: The diagram was originally uploaded to illustrate "locus" and the epitrochoid is an example of a locus generated by a point on a disk rolling around a circle.

The diagram at the right may be helpful in describing this ArbCom case, in which the two principle parties consistently appear to reason and to argue at cross-purposes. The caption attempts to view this WP:V, WP:BURDEN, WP:RSUE, WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:OR, WP:SYN and this dispute from Teeninvestor's perspective. In contast, I construe my position in the center, with Teeninvestor's erratic orbit wandering outside wiki-norms and wiki-policies.

Straw men

In this context, Teeninvestor's diffs reveal that he favors a reductio ad absurdem strategy for responding to all propositions; but this only results in a crowd of straw men, as evidenced below as Teeninvestor once again "spins"s and mis-frames the relevant issues instead of addressing them in a forthright manner. --Tenmei (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The comment below appears to conflate the act of citing a source per WP:CITE with process of verifying material added to Wikipedia per WP:V. In other words, Teeninvestor asserts that the phrase "verified with standard bibliographic information" is to be construed as the equivalent of compliance with WP:V, despite what is deconstructed or parsed above in this section.

For redundant clarity, Teeninvestor's comment below appears to conflate "verifiability in principle" with no verifiability at all. In other words, Teeninvestor asserts that the phrase "verified with standard bibliographic information" is to be construed as "verifiability in principle" to the extent that no further burden attends the editor who provides a reference source citation in a recognizable format.

In short, Teeninvestor asserts WP:CITE = WP:V?

In contrast, Tenmei asserts WP:CITE ≠ WP:V? --Tenmei (talk) 20:21, 24 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:

• WP talk:Verifiability/Archive#6
• WP talk:Verifiability/Archive#15
• WP talk:Verifiability/Archive#16
• WP talk:Verifiability/Archive#18
• WP talk:Verifiability/Archive#21
• WP talk:Verifiability/Archive#23
• WP talk:Verifiability/Archive#26
• WP talk:Verifiability/Archive#28
• WP talk:Verifiability/Archive#29
• WP talk:Verifiability/Archive#31

The following threads focus on WP:V issues using Dutch, Norwegian, and French sources:

• Dutch sources
• Norwegian sources; Norwegian sources
• French sources

These links may be plausibly relevant or useful in the process of resolving the issues presented by our case. Tenmei 00:09, 13 April 2009 --Tenmei (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Tenmei- note that in all cases the source was accepted as verified with standard bibliographic information, just like this one. For example, in the link about Norwegian sources, it is stated very clearly that verifiability is "verifiability in principle", not instant verifiability for every reader. And for all your wasted text, you still haven't stated why you think my source is not compliant with WP:V. Teeninvestor (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

{topic}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: