Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Workshop: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:09, 29 April 2009

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Motion to expand the scope of the case to Tenmei's behaviour and WP:harassment

2) Given Tenmei's history of harassing, trolling, vandalism, and other attacks on editors, I believe that ArbCom should expand the case's scope to his behaviour and deal with this very important issue. In particular, ArbCom needs to put a stop to his harassment of editors such as Nick-D and Caspian Blue.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Response to Teeninvestor: I would have thought that some comment or statement of assent from Nick-D and/or Caspian blue would be necessary for a motion like this> I would also guess that more specificity would be needed if it were to be given serious consideration. In the context of Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty, it may prove difficult to identify credible evidence of harassing, trolling, vandalism, and other attacks on editors. If you are asking ArbCom to consider a wider context, then I would imagine that some indication of the ambit of that broader swathe of conduct would be needed? --Tenmei (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your harassment of Caspian Blue despite his noninvolvement in the case and your attacks on other editors(For example, calling other editors "toxic" and "ilk", I would imagine the examples are more than enough to justify this motion.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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"?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Since Tenmei refused to answer my question, I shall show him some info from WP:V. On foreign-language sources, the following was stated:

Because this is the English Wikipedia, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source has been used correctly. Where editors translate a direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.

(bolding mine).

Thus, the need to provide translated summaries is only applicable if a direct quote was used, completely destroying Tenmei's argument of my violation of WP:V and showing that he is a policy violater. ArbCom take care. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing this source is unreliable because it's "unaccessible"? That's a terrible argument. Verifiability is Verifiability in principle, not for every reader. Seems like you need to understand your wikipedia policy! I rest my case. Teeninvestor (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Teeninvestor -- As you know, I have already addressed your question in a number of ways; and in the context of your ArbCom contributions, I have to wonder if this newest question isn't a kind of baiting game. Assuming that your request for a restatement were a genuine form of outreach, I would want to reply.

Perhaps something constructive will result if we re-visit one of my diffs in the period before this ArbCom case was accepted -- see link.

Responding to Risker and Carcharoth, I referenced a couple of dictionary definitions.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defintion: "verifiability" parsed analysis, distinguishing (a) a confirmation of truth or authority; (b) the evidence for such a confirmation; and (c) a formal assertion of validity ...?
Oxford Essential Dictionary of the U.S. Military definition: "verifiability" parsed analysis, distinguishing (a) the process of establishing the truth, accuracy, or validity of something; and (b) the process of ensuring that the procedures of a validation process are followed ...?

In had hoped that the ArbCom context would foster the growth of a more nuanced vocabulary; but that seems not to have happened yet. The dictionaries parse this word a little differently, and maybe that subtle difference can be useful in an attempt to introduce nuance.

For the purposes of this rely to your question, let's hypothesise (arguendo, that the ultimate rationale which makes WP:V important to us is "credibility" or "credence". In other words, "credence" is somehow related to the ultimate objective of the policy. If so, then it would be reasonable to acknowledge a priori that we agree that "credence" can be understood as a one-word description of the ultimate of objective toward which WP:V has evolved is "credence."

We seem to differ about what WP:V requires from us. One way to characterize or summarize your comments in this ArbCom venue would be to suggest that your focus is on process. In other words, you have argued that when you post an in-line citation with a page number and/or when you demonstrate with a link that a book exists, your task as a Wikipedia contributor is reasonably completed --ergo, you assert, you have complied with WP:V. However, this kind of process-analysis doesn't say much about the ultimate goal of all Wikipedia policies. These are, in the end, focused on ensuring the academic integrity of each article and of the Wikipedia encyclopedia as a whole.

Restatement: Our goal is to produce articles which can be shown as "credible."

In other words, despite those things about which we do disagree, we can at least acknowledge that our collaborative editing is directed towards creating a credible encyclopedia. We want those who have not participated in an article's creation to be able to make assessments about whether each sentence, each paragraph, each embedded concept is worthy of the adjective "credible" (and/or some other word which is a near-synonym to "verifiability"). In other words, this is another way of re-phrasing our agreement in principle on WP:V.

American dictionary

(a) confirmation of verifiability/credibility
(b) evidence of verifiability/credibility
(c) formal assertion of verifiability

British dictionary

(a) process of establishing verifiability
(b) conforming to process of establishing verifiability

In this conceptual schema, the American dictionary makes distinctions amongst three aspects of the term. The British dictionary parses two elements. Id each dictionary definition, the multi-part format suggests that there is a distinction between formally asserting compliance with processes and the goal which such processes is intended to achieve. Whether parsed into two or three elements, the dictionaries may be helpful in clarifying your understanding that something is lost when these parsed elements are conflated. --Tenmei (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teeninvestor -- As you know, you posted a "comment" above which is formatted on this page immediately after the question to which I've replied using the pattern of dictionaries -- see diff. There are four sentences -- see diff. For deliberately redundant] emphasis, I've re-copied them below in reverse order; and I propose to use these sentences to illustrate this explanation:

A. "Also note you didn't answer my question: Do you understand WP:V?"

Answer: Yes, I do understand WP:V. Even if my prose is unconvincing or unclear, you have to acknowledge that, at a minimum, I understand the demonstrated fact that the word "verifiability" is a concept which can be defined and understood as having more than one constituent parts.

B. "This is a pattern demonstrated by you at Hyuga as well, where you removed material that was placed with consensus."

Answer: If we assume that this single sentence is intended to be understood as "credible" by the ArbCom participants, then it would be fair to say that your goal in posting this sentence on this workshop page is comparable to your intended goals for each and every sentence you have posted at Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. If anyone reading your sentence happens to wonder what you mean by "pattern," how would that curious reader go about verifying your conclusory statement that there is pattern to be discerned from my participation in the creation of the article about Hyūga class helicopter destroyers. The dictionary definitions of "verifiability" or "credibility" or any number of other near synonyms help us to appreciate that there is a conceptual distinction between your sentence and the process of verifying that sentence.

ArbCom emphasizes the use of diffs; therefore, it is non-confrontational and non-controversial for me to encourage you to add one or more diffs to this sentence in order to make it easier for anyone who might want to know what you mean by the word "pattern." In effect, the diffs are like the in-line citations or bibliographic reference notes of a Wikipedia article. As you must know, sometimes the diffs don't work exactly as intended -- perhaps because a single character will have been accidentally omitted from the string. This is a little like leaving off the page number within an in-line citation. This citation error can be easily fixed, but what this example illustrates is that the specific act of adding page numbers is a conceptually distinct task. The actual examination of the words in the diff is different than the accurate creation of a link to the diff.

The term "pattern" implies more than one element or part, and the final clause in your sentence narrows the field to that pattern of edits at Hyūga class helicopter destroyer where you allege that I "removed material that was placed with consensus." Bluntly, there is no diff.

Quite simply, this sentence cannot be verified. You mislead any reader who encounters this sentence. There is a 180° difference between what you have stated in this one sentence and what you can verify. In other words, this sentence is unverifiable because the supporting confirmation is inaccessible ... in the same way that "5000 years of Chinese history" is unverifiable because not one of its sentences are accessible.

C. "However, you continued to remove material from the article without consensus."

Answer: This sentence begs the question about what you mean when you use the term "consensus" in a Wikipedia context -- See link?

D. "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.

Answer This sentence begs the question about what you mean when you use the term "consensus" which "had already been formed" -- See link?

Teeninvestor -- You may dislike what I write and you may claim that you don't understand what I write, but you cannot state that I am refusing to respond to your questions -- see diff. It would be unhelpful for me to characterize your non-response to my many questions as "refusal." Instead, let me take this opportunity to invite you to answer a question, any question, from amongst the several questions posed on this ArbCom workshop page. Better still, please consider investing your time in answering them all. --Tenmei (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 17:54, 10 April 2009~~

Rather than suggesting draft text, this proposed remedy calls for an action. --Tenmei (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Expanding the plausible utility of archived ArbCom decisions

2) Too much of this dispute can be characterized as a kind of exercise in reinventing the wheel. A significant aspect of the experiences which likely motivated Nick-D, Coldmachine, Caspian blue and others to present evidence in this ArbCom case was the process in which each felt required to redo work unnecessarily when it has already been done satisfactorily or to rethink an already working system, technique, etc. in a pointless attempt to improve it.

The function of ArbCom decisions needs to be expanded to help me and others avoid "reinventing the wheel" ad nauseam. The intentional end-purpose of this ArbCom case needs to focus more explicitly on its potential usefulness to the entire community, not only on the limited extent to which the parties and participants can benefit from ArbCom's attention.

Assuming {arguendo) that Tenmei were entirely wrong. It would have been a great savings of time and bother if Teeninvestor could have supplemented his/her attempts to work with Tenmei by pointing to a dispute just like ours in the archived ArbCom cases. Teeninvestor might have been able to point out that someone else was wrong in the same way Tenmei was wrong, and he/she would have been able to show that ArbCom had already considered and rejected a misinformed view of what WP:V requires.

Presuming that Teeninvestor were only partly correct. If ArbCom confirms that Tenmei has not entirely misunderstood fundamental Wikipedia policies, then the archived record would be available to help Tenmei explain in a more succinct and more effective way in the future.

This ArbCom case will be worth the time and effort invested in it if Tenmei or anyone else can point to specific elements in archived ArbCom decisions. It's reasonable to guess that Tenmei's less-than-satisfactory experiences with Teeninvestor, Nick-D, Coldmachine or Caspian blue, for example, might have been mitigated if the ArbCom case records were available to help as an aide to better communication.

Rather than suggesting draft text, this proposed remedy calls for an action. --Tenmei (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Teeninvestor: No -- bluntly, I'm not wrong.

In an exaggerated effort to avoid further controversy, I presented two hypotheticals in a non-confrontational manner. Two contrived postulates are offered as a foundation from which to examine the plausible consequences of this proposal. The word "assume" is encompassed within WP:AGF. The subjunctive concepts which inform an assumption or a presumption are not conventionally taken as admissions or confessions of any sort.

The first of these speculative paragraphs supposes that you might have used something from an archived ArbCom case to explain your point-of-view. This hypothetical is, in fact, impossible ... but the rhetorical device helps to keep the focus of the sentence on the ways that an ArbCom decision might have been used to avert problems at an early stage. Similarly, the next paragraph focuses on the way the ways in which an ArbCom decision might be used in a future non-specific setting. In order to make the proposal even more palatable, I linked this proposal with avoiding WP:TLDR prospectively.

You are the one who is wrong.

This simple declarative sentence is direct, unequivocal, harsh. Since my ultimate goals are collaborative, I imagined that more measured language would serve longer-term purposes; and in general, I'm persuaded that it represents a better way forward. Perhaps in another setting, such gestures will be received differently. --Tenmei (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

So do you realize your conception of WP:V is wrong??? Teeninvestor (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:V? Seriously, do you understand wikipedia policy! From what I gather, you've been here for two years, have you bothered checking the links you yourself provided, you would have discovered your conception of WP:V is wrong . Four editors, not related to the case, have testified against you. That says something. You haven't learned from your mistakes, and I think ArbCom should, as Nick-D put it, provide some sanctions against you.Teeninvestor (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:[reply]

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)[reply]

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.,

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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:

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, Caspian blue -- NO. I acknowledge a trivial editing mistake, nothing more.

Responding seriatim:

A. No -- no words were deleted or "altered" in your commentary ... and I reject this bickering strategy
B. Yes -- an error swallowed your work, but it was restored promptly -- see diff
C. No -- there was no "personal attack" ... and I reject this knee jerk indignation tactic
D. No -- response not deleted; only moved to comply with instruction #1 at top of page -- see diff
E. No -- the phrase "another but typical personal attacks" is like noise (economic)?
F. No -- the phrase "behaviors make me to have been hesitant" is like signal noise?
G. No -- the phrase "first attack editors instead of focusing contents" is like image noise
H. No -- the phrase "strike or delete the attack" is like noise (audio)
I. No -- the phrase "does not even stop such disruption on this public space" is like noise (video)

Suggestion: Think again. Review this edit history starting at the beginning -- see #1.

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. The term seriatim sums up my current approach. 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 and seriatim. --Tenmei (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Given this another rambling with the attack, Tenmei is just proving himself that Teeninvestor and my criticism on his behaviors is so correct. Write succinctly down your point with diffs, not make WP:POINT.Caspian blue 22:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Full endorsement to the analysis. As one of editors who have to bear Tenmei's harassment, I somewhat expected Tenmei would've at least refrained his uncivil/rude behaviors on the "investigating public space" (and he would've care less about me). However, his behavior is even getting worse. He tries to discredit Teeninvester's statement by labeling as "tactic", "gambit", "toxic", "strategy" and many disgraceful languages. He does not assume good faith at all on his opponent. Besides, do not treat Teeninvester as the socking vandal. I don't understand why Tenmei links entries of "wikitionary" as if Teeninvestor or other editors who read his comment are too unintelligent to understand "GRE"-level idioms or words used by him.--Caspian blue 22:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Evidence presented by Teeninvestor

Tenmei still doesn't understand my evidence- Tenmei, don't you see that your obstinacy+ disruption has caused pains for everyone? You haven't showed the book(whose accuracy is now confirmed by Pericles) to be unverifiable, You've attacked everyone you've meet, and you've used WP:TLDR to your advantage. Teeninvestor (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Response by Tenmei: The relatively short thread which developed at User talk:PericlesofAthens#Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty illustrates a pattern this ArbCom case has mirrored since it first opened -- link:

A (diff) 19:55, 16 March 2009 Teeninvestor (78,470 bytes) (→Inner Asia during the Tang dynasty: new section)
B (diff) 22:17, 16 March 2009 Teeninvestor (78,748 bytes) (→Inner Asia during the Tang dynasty)
C (diff) 01:01, 17 March 2009 Teeninvestor (79,309 bytes) (→Inner Asia during the Tang dynasty)
D (diff) 15:00, 17 March 2009 Tenmei (81,642 bytes) (→Inner Asia during the Tang dynasty: mediation)
E (diff) 15:02, 17 March 2009 Tenmei (81,674 bytes) (→Mediation: more specificity)
F (diff) 15:11, 17 March 2009 Teeninvestor (81,829 bytes) (→Inner Asia during the Tang dynasty)

In this series of diffs, Teeninvestor appears to be building a head of steam. Despite my measured tone and non-confrontational words, this attempt to focus on mildly presented issues was thwarted. Instead, I seem to have inspired exasperation anew. The opinions which Teeninvestor identifies as "evidence" were developed in a similar, difficult-to-parse process. --Tenmei (talk) 02:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For easier reading, I have re-positioned Teeninvestor Comment which was 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)[reply]

The standard streams for input, output, and error

ArbCom was correct in opening this case. With very few words, Teeninvestor's comments here succeed in an attempt to hit the nail on the head. This timely diff demonstrates a pernicious misunderstanding which is consistently off the mark.

Trajectories of two objects thrown at the same angle. The blue object is unaffected by any drag and moves along a parabola. The black object is affected by Stokes' drag, causing it to fall shorter.

Addressing Teeninvestor points seriatim.

A. "Tenmei still doesn't understand my evidence"

No, I do understand the trajectory of Teeninvestor's "evidence" as mainly missing the target.

B. "Tenmei, don't you see that your obstinacy + disruption has caused pains for everyone?"

No, I do see that Teeninvestor has not invested time and thought in trying to figure out how we could have averted this dispute nor are there indications that Teeninvestor acknowledged opportunities to mitigate a cumulative array of nested conflicts.

C. "You haven't showed the book (whose accuracy is now confirmed by Pericles) to be unverifiable"

No, I do show that the book is not "verified" and that the book's accuracy is not confirmed -- see link.

D. "You've attacked everyone you've meet"

No, I do recognize that Teeninvestor's comparatively modest personal attacks deserve to be overlooked.

E. "[Y]ou've used WP:TLDR to your advantage"

No, I do appreciate what the phrase "less is more" means, but the hortatory admonitions of WP:TLDR are plainly inapposite in dealing with the Gordian Knot of challenges Teeninvestor presents.

Teeninvestor's few words do help to move this ArbCom case forward by illustrating the crux of this dispute. Moreover, it's fair to say that Teeninvestor's summary is easier to grasp than all the paragraphs I've written since this ArbCom case was opened.

My valued-added contribution is to re-emphasize the importance of ArbCom's focus on discerning an endgame or exit strategy which still remains elusive. --Tenmei (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Evidence presented by Tenmei

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Evidence presented by Yaan

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by Tenmei: I can't see how Teeninvestor realistically expects anyone to endorse a position different than the one Yann articulates. I welcome this opportunity to adopt Yann's sensible views as my own.

In this ArbCom case, Teeninvestor has contrived a smokescreen of personal attack directed at me; and no comment has been offered to rebut or dispute Yann's straightforward, succinct contribution. This analysis is intended to draw attention to the practical reasons why ArbCom should endorse Yann's rejection of novel "principles." ArbCom's decision in this minor case is likely to play out in an unforeseen number of disputes which may be averted because of the time and attention invested here.

In this comment, I am also responding obliquely to the broad claims made by Teeninvestor, Nick-D, Caspian blue and others than I don't understand WP:V and WP:RS. My attention to hortatory core policies is evidenced in words and actions, as more fully articulated below:

I posted what I believed to have been a modest request for more information at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty#Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information;and it became a first step leading to the RfA in this case.

I could have framed my inquiry in terms of WP:RS, as Yann has done, but this begs the question -- What difference would it have made? At that time, I imagined that WP:V presented a non-confrontational, non-controversial approach ....

In this short talk-page section, I presented what I termed "cautious demands" -- see link. I explained to Teeninvestor that "I ask no more from your edits than I would expect you to require from mine." For redundant emphasis, I re-copy the following invitation which Teeninvestor may have overlooked:

"E. The questions I raise are fair and reasonable. In these cautious demands, I ask no more from your edits than I would expect you to require from mine. For example, if you like, please feel free to criticize my modest contributions to Imperial Japanese embassies to China. If your input can help enhance the quality of that article, I would welcome your suggestions." --diff

I responded to Arilang1234's invitation to help improve and expand Imperial Japanese embassies to China -- link. Before my contributions, there were no in-line citations nor were any bibliographic reference sources noted. For redundant clarity, I re-copy them here:

References

Kitagawa, Hiroshi and Bruce T. Tsuchida. (1977). The Tale of the Heike. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. 10-ISBN 0-860-08128-1; 13-ISBN 978-0-860-08128-9
Ponsonby-Fane, Richard Arthur Brabazon. (1959). The Imperial House of Japan. Kyoto: Ponsonby Memorial Society. OCLC 194887
Template:Fr icon Titsingh, Isaac, ed. (1834). [Siyun-sai Rin-siyo/Hayashi Gahō, 1652], Nipon o daï itsi ran; ou, Annales des empereurs du Japon. Paris: Oriental Translation Fund of Great Britain and Ireland.
Varley, H. Paul. (1973). Japanese Culture: A Short History. New York: Praeger Publishers. OCLC 590531
__________. (1980). [ Kitabatake Chikafusa (1359)], Jinnō Shōtōki ("A Chronicle of Gods and Sovereigns: Jinnō Shōtōki of Kitabatake Chikafusa" translated by H. Paul Varley). New York: Columbia University Press. 10-ISBN 0-231-04940-4; 13-ISBN 978-0-231-04940-5

Full bibliographic information including some online links to articles about each of the publishers are provided. In order to make it easier for readers to locate these sources, ISBN links and WorldCat/OCLC links are presented. I add such information as a matter of course in order to assist the process of verifying the edits I contribute; and I have noticed that others do this as well.

Although it is not conventional, I supplied links to articles I wrote about three of the scholarly authors -- Richard Ponsonby-Fane, Isaac Titsingh and H. Paul Varley. It is undisputed that creating articles about scholar/authors is not required, but these articles do make it easier for Arilang1234 or anyone else to verify that these scholar/authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand -- see italics in original at WP:RS.

I find it persuasive that Yann focused attention, in part, on the intimate relationship between the credibility of authors and the verifiability of their work. In the context of our dispute, Teeninvestor's lack of information about the authors, Li Bo (historian) (李波) and Zheng Yin (historian) (郑颖), are inconclusive. In the absence of accessible information about the authors or the publisher, Inner Mongolian People's Publishing House (内蒙古人民出版社), the fact that Teeninvestor's citations conform to a recognizeable formatting style is not relevant> What is relevant is the search to verify or confirm the credibility of the published text which is said to inform specific sentences at Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. Compliance with WP:CITE doesn't in itself convert 5000 years of Chinese history (中华五千年) ipso facto into anything other than a citation.

In the spirit of asking no more from Teeninvestor's edits than I would expect Teeninvestor to require from mine, perhaps it will be useful to focus on just one book amongst the ones used to expand Imperial Japanese embassies to China.

As a matter of interest, the first Japanese history book to be published in the West was Isaac Titsingh's translation of Nihon Ōdai Ichiran. The text was initially compiled by Hayashi Gahō in 1657; and its seven volumes were re-issued by the shogunate in 1803. As it happens, in the course of contributing to Wikipedia, I discovered that I'm interested in the ways in which the format and style of this 1834 book can be construed as congruent with Wikipedia's stub- and start-level articles.

As a Wikipedia novice, I encountered strong resistance from critics who were unfamiliar with this book. I remember early lessons learned the hard way about WP:V, WP:Burden, WP:RSUE, WP:Cite and WP:RS. Ironically, my troubles started when I first began to add Nihon Ōdai Ichiran to Wikipedia articles which had been tagged with a "references needed" headnote; and it became clear that

these critics were simply unaware that Titsingh's work was encompassed within the specialized reference library Commodore Matthew Perry assembled before setting out with a squadron of U.S. Navy ships which sailed into Japanese history in 1853-1854 ...; and
they hadn't known that the Tokugawa shogunate's principal negotiator with the Americans at Kanegawa and with Emperor Komei in Kyoto -- Daigaku-no-kami Hayashi Akira -- was the patrilineal direct descendant of the compiler and later editors of Nihon Ōdai Ichiran
they didnt appreciate that, by virtue of his inherited shogunate office, Hayashi was also the one person most responsible for ensuring the undisputed reliability of this book and others created by the Hayashi clan of neo-Confucian scholar/bureaucrats.

Over the course of intervening years, I've worked to improve the articles about this least significant of Isaac Titsingh's posthumously published books.

Since that rocky beginning, I've attempted to mitigate any further disputes or controversy by creating or expanding articles which establish a nested context for any contributions from this reference source, e.g.,

Translator: Isaac Titsingh
- Titsingh's editors: Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat, Julius Klaproth
- Titsingh's Paris colleagues: Silvestre de Sacy, Jean-François Champollion, Antoine Léonard de Chézy, Louis-Mathieu Langlès, Joseph de Guignes
- Titsingh's London colleagues: Joseph Banks, William Jones, William Marsden, José Correia da Serra
- Titsingh's Peiking colleagues: Andreas Everardus van Braam Houckgeest, Chrétien-Louis-Joseph de Guignes
- Titsingh's Japanese colleagues: Kutsuki Masatsuna, Kuze Hirotami, Shimazu Shigehide
19th century scholarly critics: Philipp Franz von Siebold, Richard Hildreth, James Murdock
20th century scholarly critics: Charles Ralph Boxer, John Whitney Hall, Richard Ponsonby-Fane, Ezra Pound.
21st century scholarly critics: Timon Screech,
Publisher: Oriental Translation Society of Great Britain and Ireland

More broadly, I'm interested in the way in which the histories compiled by pre-modern Japanese scholars are mirrored in the writing of Wikipedia articles which rely to a large extent on the bullet-like glyphs used to introduce items in a list. Unlike those who invest time and care in developing featured articles, my focus is at the level of stub- and start-level articles. At the broadest level, I'm interested in the Sino-Japanese tradition of "listing" chronologies, which have been arguably characterized by Western scholars little more than an inventory, e.g.,

Nihon Shoki by unknown authors (720), "history" from a legendary POV
Gukanshō by Jien (c. 1220) "history" from a Buddhist POV
Jinnō Shōtōki by Kitabatake Chikafusa (1359), "history" from a Shinto POV
Nihon Ōdai Ichiran by Hayashi Gahō (1652), "history" from a neo-Confucian POV
Tokushi Yoron by Arai Hakuseki (1712), "history" for the periodization of history on the basis of changes in political power

In light of WP:NPOV, any Wikipedia citation using these texts would understandably call for close scrutiny because pre-Meiji Japanese histories were intended, in large part, to be construed as documenting how the past legitimizes the present status quo.

In a sense, the necessity for closely scrutinizing cited facts about the past is no different than what is commonplace in evaluating current events. For example, the Chinese People's Daily Online reported a 2008 dispute over proposed text in a Japanese Ministry of Education book of education guidelines for middle school students. Controversial references to what Wikipedia identifies as Liancourt Islands caused the Republic of South Korea to recall its ambassador from Tokyo in 2008 -- see "Dispute over Dokdo Island hinders ROK-Japan relations," People's Daily Online (Beijing). July 23, 2008. Undoubtedly, The Chosun Ilbo would be considered a reliable source for more information about this event; but the mere act of identifying or citing a news article from this South Korean newspaper is conceptually distinct from actually reading any one of the following articles:

"Korea Protests Against "Japanese Dokdo Material Online," Choson Ilbo. December 29, 2008.
"Japanese Textbooks to Repeat Dokdo Claim," Choson Ilbo. May. 19, 2008
"Korea Gets Boost from Japanese Dokdo Papers," Choson Ilbo. January 5, 2009.
"Japanese Ordinance Excludes Dokdo from Territory," Choson Ilbo. January 5, 2
"Japan Denies Excluding Dokdo in Newly Found Papers," Choson Ilbo. January 8, 2009.
"Japan Approves Whitewash History Textbook," Choson Ilbo. April 10, 2009.

These South Korean newspaper articles represent another way of making the same point Yann makes; and the illustrative example would be no less forceful if the articles were to have been culled from the Asahi Shinbun or the Yomiuri Shinbun of The Straits Times ....

In the Wikipedia milieu, I'm curious about how the contrasts between a non-POV perpsective and a deliberately contrived POV perspective are sometimes quite minor or negligible. For several months, I worked from three books simultaneously -- often citing Gukanshō, Jinnō Shōtōki and Nihon Ōdai Ichiran in the same in-line citation. In the expansion of Imperial Japanese embassies to China, I cited only two of these.

My participation in Wikipedia has been influenced by an interest in the ways that the development of pre-Meiji period historiography in Japan parallels the growth of articles in Wikipedia. In one sense, this is quite obviously a matter of apples and oranges, but what attracts my continuing curiosity are those recurring instances in which commonalities can be discerned. At some point in 2010, I suspect my interest Nihon Ōdai Ichiran will wane; and tentatively, I then plan to spend more time adding citations and tweaking article texts in light of Tokushi Yoron.

In terms of my past, present and future contributions, I conclude that it is absolutely essential for ArbCom to endorse and underscore the rejection of Teeninvestor's proposed principles. Expressed in different words, it is crucial for ArbCom to endorse affirm and clarify the positions and principles in "Evidence presented by Yann." --Tenmei (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Evidence presented by Nick-D

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Response by Tenmei: A benign foundation for Nick-D's opinion was established by Teeninvestor on March 27th as he/she summarized the situation succinctly:

"I find it pretty strange that ArbCom would dabble into this ... [because] ...

1st of all, there is no more edit warring/uncivil whatever at the article itself.
2nd of all, the links to source exist, so it is 'verifiable'.
3rd of all, there's no 'behaviourial problems' ...?" -- diff

When this three-part analysis is contrasted with Nick-D's contribution, the context helps to highlight those issues which ArbCom can address constructively. --Tenmei (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Evidence presented by Coldmachine

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Response by Tenmei: A benign foundation for Coldmachine's opinion was established by Teeninvestor on March 27th as he/she summarized the situation succinctly:

"I find it pretty strange that ArbCom would dabble into this ... [because] ...

1st of all, there is no more edit warring/uncivil whatever at the article itself
2nd of all, the links to source exist, so it is 'verifiable'
3rd of all, there's no 'behaviourial problems' ...?" -- diff

When this three-part analysis is contrasted with Coldmachine's contribution, the context helps to highlight those issues which ArbCom can address constructively. --Tenmei (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Evidence presented by Bueller 007

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Response by Tenmei: A benign foundation for Bueller 007's opinion was established by Teeninvestor on March 27th as he/she summarized the situation succinctly:

"I find it pretty strange that ArbCom would dabble into this ... [because] ...

1st of all, there is no more edit warring/uncivil whatever at the article itself
2nd of all, the links to source exist, so it is 'verifiable'
3rd of all, there's no 'behaviourial problems' ...?" -- diff

When this three-part analysis is contrasted with Bueller 007's contribution, the context helps to highlight those issues which ArbCom can address constructively. --Tenmei (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Evidence presented by Penwhale

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Evidence presented by Caspian blue

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Response by Tenmei: A benign foundation for Caspian blue's opinion was established by Teeninvestor on March 27th as he/she summarized the situation succinctly:

"I find it pretty strange that ArbCom would dabble into this ... [because] ...

1st of all, there is no more edit warring/uncivil whatever at the article itself.
2nd of all, the links to source exist, so it is "verifiable"
3rd of all, there's no 'behaviourial problems' ...?" -- diff

When this three-part analysis is contrasted with Caspian blue's contributions, the context helps to highlight those issues which ArbCom can address constructively. --Tenmei (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 is a subset WP:V? --Tenmei (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 00:09, 13 April 2009~~ --Tenmei (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

{topic}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

@@ Line 1,166: / Line 1,166: @@
 :'''Comment by parties:'''
+::'''Comment by [[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]]''':  I can't see how [[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]] realistically expects anyone to endorse a position different than the one [[User:Yann|Yann]] articulates.  I welcome this opportunity to adopt [[User:Yann|Yann]]'s sensible views as my own.
-::
+::In this ArbCom case, [[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]] has contrived a smokescreen of personal attack directed at me; and no comment has been offered to rebut or dispute [[User:Yann|Yann]]'s straightforward, succinct contribution. This analysis is intended to draw attention to the practical reasons why ArbCom should endorse [[User:Yann|Yann]]'s rejection of novel "principles."   ArbCom's decision in this minor case is likely to play out in an unforeseen number of disputes which may be averted because of the time and attention invested here.
+::In this comment, I am also responding obliquely to the broad claims made by  [[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]], [[User:Nick-D|Nick-D]], [[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] and others than I don't understand [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]].  My attention to [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hortatory  hortatory] core policies is evidenced in words and actions, as more fully articulated below:
+:::I posted what I believed to have been a modest request for more information at [[Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty#Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information]];and it became a first step leading to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tang_Dynasty  RfA] in this case.
+:::I could have [[framing (social science)|framed]] my inquiry in terms of [[WP:RS]], as [[User:Yann|Yann]] has done, but this begs the question -- What difference would it have made?  At that time, I imagined that [[WP:V]] presented a non-confrontational, non-controversial approach ....
+:::In this short talk-page section, I presented what I termed "cautious demands"  -- see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inner_Asia_during_the_Tang_Dynasty&oldid=286047401#Zero_information_is_preferred_to_misleading_or_false_information  link]. I explained to [[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]] that "I ask no more from your edits than I would expect you to require from mine." For redundant emphasis, I re-copy the following invitation which [[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]] may have overlooked:
+::::"E. The questions I raise are fair and reasonable. In these cautious demands, I ask no more from your edits than I would expect you to require from mine. For example, if you like, please feel free to criticize my modest contributions to [[Imperial Japanese embassies to China]]. If your input can help enhance the quality of that article, I would welcome your suggestions." --[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Inner_Asia_during_the_Tang_Dynasty&diff=next&oldid=277315106  diff]
+::: I responded to [[User:Arilang1234|Arilang1234]]'s invitation to help improve and expand [[Imperial Japanese embassies to China]] -- [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arilang1234/Archive_2&oldid=276481815#Hua-Yi_distinction  link].  Before my contributions, there were no in-line citations nor were any bibliographic reference sources noted.  For redundant clarity, I re-copy them here:
+::::'''References'''<br>
+::::* Kitagawa, Hiroshi and Bruce T. Tsuchida. (1977). [http://books.google.com/books?id=fz2BAAAAIAAJ&q=The+Tale+of+the+Heike+and+Kitagawa&dq=The+Tale+of+the+Heike+and+Kitagawa&client=firefox-a&pgis=1  ''The Tale of the Heike.''] Tokyo: [[University of Tokyo Press]]. 10-ISBN 0-860-08128-1; 13-ISBN 978-0-860-08128-9
+::::* [[Richard Ponsonby-Fane|Ponsonby-Fane]], Richard Arthur Brabazon. (1959). [http://books.google.com/books?id=SLAeAAAAMAAJ&q=The+Imperial+House+of+Japan&dq=The+Imperial+House+of+Japan&client=firefox-a&pgis=1  ''The Imperial House of Japan.''] Kyoto: Ponsonby Memorial Society. [http://www.worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/194887 OCLC 194887]
+::::* {{fr icon}} [[Isaac Titsingh|Titsingh]], Isaac, ed. (1834). [Siyun-sai Rin-siyo/[[Hayashi Gahō]], 1652], ''[[Nipon o daï itsi ran]]; ou, [http://books.google.com/books?id=18oNAAAAIAAJ&dq=nipon+o+dai+itsi+ran  Annales des empereurs du Japon.'']  Paris: [[Royal Asiatic Society|Oriental Translation Fund of Great Britain and Ireland]].
+::::* [[H. Paul Varley|Varley]], H. Paul. (1973). [http://books.google.com/books?id=niMEGQAACAAJ&dq=Japanese+Culture:+A+Short+History&client=firefox-a  ''Japanese Culture: A Short History.'']  New York: [[Greenwood Publishing Group|Praeger Publishers]]. [http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/590531&referer=brief_results  OCLC 590531]
+::::* __________. (1980). [ [[Kitabatake Chikafusa]] (1359)], ''[[Jinnō Shōtōki]] ([http://books.google.com/books?id=e1VZHgAACAAJ&dq=A+Chronicle+of+Gods+and+Sovereigns:+Jinn%C5%8D+Sh%C5%8Dt%C5%8Dki+of+Kitabatake+Chikafusa&client=firefox-a  "A Chronicle of Gods and Sovereigns: Jinnō Shōtōki of Kitabatake Chikafusa"] translated by H. Paul Varley).'' New York: [[Columbia University Press]]. 10-ISBN 0-231-04940-4; 13-ISBN 978-0-231-04940-5
+:::Full bibliographic information including some online links to articles about each of the publishers are provided. In order to make it easier for readers to locate these sources, [[ISBN]] links and [[WorldCat]]/[[OCLC]] links are presented.  I add such information as a matter of course in order to assist the process of verifying the edits I contribute; and I have noticed that others do this as well.
+:::Although it is not conventional, I supplied links to articles I wrote about three of the scholarly authors -- [[Richard Ponsonby-Fane]], [[Isaac Titsingh]] and [[H. Paul Varley]].  It is undisputed that creating articles about scholar/authors is <u>not</u> required, but these articles do make it easier for [[User:Arilang1234|Arilang1234]] or anyone else to verify that these scholar/authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative ''in relation to the subject at hand'' -- see ''italics'' in original at [[WP:RS]].
+:::I find it persuasive that [[User:Yann|Yann]] focused attention, in part, on the intimate relationship between the credibility of authors and the verifiability of their work.   In the context of our dispute, [[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]]'s lack of information about the authors,  [[Li Bo (historian)]] (李波) and [[Zheng Yin (historian)]] (郑颖), are inconclusive.  In the absence of accessible information about the authors or the publisher, [[Inner Mongolian People's Publishing House]] (内蒙古人民出版社), the fact that [[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]]'s citations conform to a recognizeable formatting style is <u>not</u> relevant>  What is relevant is the search to verify or confirm the credibility of the published text which is said to inform specific sentences at [[Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty]].  Compliance with [[WP:CITE]] doesn't in itself convert ''[[5000 years of Chinese history]]'' (中华五千年) ''[[ipso facto]]'' into anything other than a citation.
+:::In the spirit of asking no more from [[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]]'s edits than I would expect [[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]] to require from mine, perhaps it will be useful to focus on just one book amongst the ones used to expand [[Imperial Japanese embassies to China]].
+:::As a matter of interest, the first Japanese history book to be published in the West was [[Isaac Titsingh]]'s translation of [[Nihon Ōdai Ichiran]].  The text was initially compiled by [[Hayashi Gahō]] in 1657; and its seven volumes were re-issued by the shogunate in 1803. As it happens, in the course of contributing to Wikipedia, I discovered that I'm interested in the ways in which the format and style of this 1834 book can be construed as congruent with Wikipedia's stub- and start-level articles.
+:::As a Wikipedia novice, I encountered strong resistance from critics who were unfamiliar with this book.  I remember early [[Lessons learned the hard way|lessons learned the hard way]] about [[WP:V]], [[WP:Burden]], [[WP:RSUE]], [[WP:Cite]] and [[WP:RS]].  Ironically,  my troubles started when I first began to add [[Nihon Ōdai Ichiran]] to Wikipedia articles which had been tagged with a "references needed" headnote; and it became clear that
+:::* these critics were simply unaware that Titsingh's work was encompassed within the specialized reference library [[Commodore Matthew Perry]] assembled before setting out with a squadron of U.S. Navy ships which sailed into Japanese history in 1853-1854 ...; and
+:::* they hadn't known that the [[Tokugawa shogunate]]'s principal negotiator with the Americans at Kanegawa and with [[Emperor Komei]] in Kyoto -- ''Daigaku-no-kami'' [[Hayashi Akira]] -- was the patrilineal direct descendant of the compiler and later editors of [[Nihon Ōdai Ichiran]]
+:::* they didnt appreciate that, by virtue of his inherited shogunate office, Hayashi was also the one person most responsible for ensuring the undisputed reliability of this book and others created by the [[Hayashi clan (Confucian scholars)|Hayashi clan]] of [[neo-Confucian]] scholar/bureaucrats.
+:::Over the course of intervening years, I've worked to improve the articles about this least significant of Isaac Titsingh's posthumously published books.
+:::Since that rocky beginning, I've attempted to mitigate any further disputes or controversy by creating or expanding articles which establish a nested context for any contributions from this reference source, e.g.,
+:::* Translator: [[Isaac Titsingh]]
+:::** Titsingh's editors: [[Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat]], [[Julius Klaproth]]
+:::** Titsingh's Paris colleagues: [[Silvestre de Sacy]], [[Jean-François Champollion]], [[Antoine Léonard de Chézy]], [[Louis-Mathieu Langlès]], [[Joseph de Guignes]]
+:::** Titsingh's London colleagues: [[Joseph Banks]], [[William Jones]], [[William Marsden]], [[José Correia da Serra]]
+:::** Titsingh's Peiking colleagues: [[Andreas Everardus van Braam Houckgeest]], [[Chrétien-Louis-Joseph de Guignes]]
+:::** Titsingh's Japanese colleagues: [[Kutsuki Masatsuna]], [[Kuze Hirotami]], [[Shimazu Shigehide]]
+:::* 19th century scholarly critics: [[Philipp Franz von Siebold]], [[Richard Hildreth]], [[James Murdock]]
+:::* 20th century scholarly critics: [[Charles Ralph Boxer]], [[John Whitney Hall]], [[Richard Ponsonby-Fane]], [[Ezra Pound]].
+:::* 21st century scholarly critics: [[Timon Screech]],
+:::* Publisher: [[Royal Asiatic Society|Oriental Translation Society of Great Britain and Ireland]]
+:::More broadly, I'm interested in the way in which the histories compiled by pre-modern Japanese scholars are mirrored in the writing of Wikipedia articles which rely to a large extent on the [[Bullet (typography)|bullet]]-like [[glyphs]] used to introduce items in a list.  Unlike those who invest time and care in developing featured articles, my focus is at the level of stub- and start-level articles.  At the broadest level, I'm interested in the Sino-Japanese tradition of "listing" chronologies, which have been arguably characterized by Western scholars little more than an [[inventory]], e.g.,
+:::* ''[[Nihon Shoki]]'' by unknown authors (720), "history" from a legendary POV
+:::* ''[[ Gukanshō]]'' by [[Jien]] (c. 1220) "history" from a Buddhist POV
+:::* ''[[Jinnō Shōtōki]]'' by [[Kitabatake Chikafusa]] (1359), "history" from a Shinto POV
+:::* ''[[Nihon Ōdai Ichiran]]'' by [[Hayashi Gahō]] (1652), "history" from a neo-Confucian POV
+:::* ''[[Tokushi Yoron]]'' by [[Arai Hakuseki]] (1712), "history" for the periodization of history on the basis of changes in political power
+:::In light of [[WP:NPOV]], any Wikipedia citation using these texts would understandably call for close scrutiny because pre-[[Meiji period|Meiji]] Japanese histories were intended, in large part, to be construed as documenting how the past legitimizes the present ''[[status quo]]''.
+:::In a sense, the necessity for closely scrutinizing cited facts about the past is no different than what is commonplace in evaluating current events.  For example, the Chinese ''People's Daily Online'' reported a 2008 dispute over proposed text in a Japanese [[Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (Japan)|Ministry of Education]] book of education guidelines for middle school students.  Controversial references to what Wikipedia identifies as  [[Liancourt Islands]] caused the [[Republic of South Korea]] to recall its ambassador from Tokyo in 2008 -- ''see'' [http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90780/91343/6456906.html "Dispute over Dokdo Island hinders ROK-Japan relations,"] ''People's Daily Online'' (Beijing). July 23, 2008.  Undoubtedly, ''[[The Chosun Ilbo]]'' would be considered a [[reliable source]] for more information about this event; but the mere act of identifying or citing a news article from this South Korean newspaper is conceptually distinct from actually reading any one of the following articles:
+:::* [http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2008/12/29/2008122961013.html  "Korea Protests Against "Japanese Dokdo Material Online,"] ''Choson Ilbo.'' December 29, 2008.
+:::* [http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2008/05/19/2008051961014.html  "Japanese Textbooks to Repeat Dokdo Claim,"] ''Choson Ilbo.'' May. 19, 2008
+:::* [http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2009/01/05/2009010561020.html  "Korea Gets Boost from Japanese Dokdo Papers,"] ''Choson Ilbo.'' January 5, 2009.
+:::* [http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2009/01/05/2009010561021.html  "Japanese Ordinance Excludes Dokdo from Territory,"] ''Choson Ilbo.'' January 5, 2
+:::* [http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2009/01/08/2009010861009.html  "Japan Denies Excluding Dokdo in Newly Found Papers,"] ''Choson Ilbo.'' January 8, 2009.
+:::* [http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2009/04/10/2009041061013.html  "Japan Approves Whitewash History Textbook,"] ''Choson Ilbo.'' April 10, 2009.
+:::These South Korean newspaper articles represent another way of making the same point [[User:Yann|Yann]] makes; and the illustrative example would be no less forceful if the articles were to have been culled from the ''[[Asahi Shinbun]]'' or the ''[[Yomiuri Shinbun]]'' of ''[[The Straits Times]]'' ....
+:::In the Wikipedia milieu, I'm curious about how the contrasts between a non-POV perpsective and a deliberately contrived POV perspective are sometimes quite minor or [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/negligible  negligible].  For several months, I worked from three books simultaneously -- often citing ''[[Gukanshō]]'', ''[[Jinnō Shōtōki]]'' and ''[[Nihon Ōdai Ichiran]]'' in the same in-line citation.  In the expansion of [[Imperial Japanese embassies to China]], I cited only two of these.
+:::My participation in Wikipedia has been influenced by an interest in the ways that the development of pre-[[Meiji period]] historiography in Japan parallels the growth of articles in Wikipedia.  In one sense, this is quite obviously a matter of [[apples and oranges]], but what attracts my continuing curiosity are those recurring instances in which commonalities can be discerned.  At some point in 2010, I suspect my interest [[Nihon Ōdai Ichiran]] will wane; and tentatively, I then plan to spend more time adding citations and tweaking article texts in light of ''Tokushi Yoron.''
+:::In terms of my past, present and future contributions, I conclude that it is absolutely essential for ArbCom to endorse and underscore the rejection of [[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]]'s proposed principles.  Expressed in different words, it is crucial for ArbCom to endorse affirm and clarify the positions and principles in "Evidence presented by [[User:Yann|Yann]]." --[[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] ([[User talk:Tenmei|talk]]) 19:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 :'''Comment by others:'''