Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Tenmei's long-term harassment: + Tenmei's recent ad hominem attacks
Line 103: Line 103:


====Tenmei's communication problems====
====Tenmei's communication problems====
Simply put, Tenmei does not have any ability to communicate and work with other editors. Even the simplest conversation get tied up into WP:TLDR threads(as can be seen by his comments every where, no diffs needed). Questions to him and explanations rarely are answered. For example, on the workshop page, I repeatedly posed to him what "more" was expected besides citing your sources to confirm WP:V, but he did not answer my question; rather, he posed a non-answer. When dealing with other editors, he frequently repeats his previous words and makes no attempt to answer them or work with them, leaving them baffled. He repeats his arguments, yet when they are questioned or contradicted by actual policy, he doesn't answer other editors' questions.
Simply put, Tenmei does not have any ability to communicate and work with other editors. Even the simplest conversation get tied up into WP:TLDR threads(as can be seen by his comments every where, no diffs needed). Questions to him and explanations rarely are answered. For example, on the workshop page, I repeatedly posed to him what "more" was expected besides citing your sources to confirm WP:V, but he did not answer my question, or rather, he gave a "non-answer". When dealing with other editors, he frequently repeats himself and does not respond to other editors' questions.


==Evidence presented by Tenmei==
==Evidence presented by Tenmei==

Revision as of 22:50, 2 May 2009

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

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Teeninvestor

Alleged misuse of sources

Tenmei's argument is three-pronged and all fallicious. Firstly, he argues that my source 1) violates WP:V and "confuses" WP:CITE with WP:V 2) violates WP:BURDEN, by not "providing a translation for every citation to a foreign-language source". 3) violates WP:RS and is inaccurate. I shall take a minute to refute all these absurd claims before moving on to discuss Tenmei's behaviour.

WP:V Concerns

From what I gather, Tenmei argues that my source is unverifiable because it is "unaccessible", in his words. diff. He also argues I lack "accessible information" about the authors, which is absurd since I have already provided their name and position(editors of an annual history book publication). In order to comply with WP:V, all you have to do is to provide the information needed(which I did) for a citation. This links to his main claim that editors must do "additional work" in order to fulfill WP:V other than cite their sources so that "everyone" can verify the source. I suggest he read WP:V. WP:V is verifiability in principle, not for every reader. And for his convenience, a link has been provided to help him verify the source. A simple showing of the connection between WP:V and WP:CITE is shown below by a sentence discussing how to comply with WP:V.

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[nb 1] The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article.[nb 2] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.

Had he read policy, Tenmei would noticed WP:CITE is the way WP:V is carried out. In order to comply with WP:V, editors use WP:CITE. It's that simple.

WP:BURDEN concerns

As for another one of Tenmei's absurd claims, that all foreign language sources must provide a long and complete translation for every citationdiff, I believe these two following links can illustrate clearly that the consensus is for foreign language sources to be provided with the same bibliographic information as English ones, and to provide a translated portion only when a direct quote is made. The editors have interpeted this policy in a way that is much different, and I think, more workable than Tenmei's.

This is further confirmed by this paragraph from WP:V.

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).

WP:RS concerns

Although previous doubts about the source were raised, but it was deemed reliable by the community, as shown by this linkdiff

The source itself is a history book published in China from a reputable publisher in that country. Its authors have published several similar books before and after(this is is an annual renewal/publication, I have the 1998 version).

In addition, the information in this article is verified by three more sources I have added to the article(not counting other editors' confirmations).-

Pericles of Athens has recently found information from another source "China's Imperial Past" in which he confirmed the information in the article(and the source in question) is correct, as shown by these diffs diff. diff Tenmei seems to acknowledge his error in that he did not contest the removal of several warnings templates after PericlesOfAthens confirmed the information in the article nor did he challenge Pericles' removal.

Tenmei's behaviour

If there is one issue worthy of being dealt with here, it is Tenmei's inability to communicate and work with other editors, as well as respecting his consensus. Other editors have expressed concerns about this, but it was ignored by him and sadly he brought this to ArbCom, disrupting other editors whose efforts could have been used elsewhere.

Tenmei, despite his lack of knowledge on the subject, is very tentedious and engages in long, difficult-to-understand arguments that disrupt the consensus. As shown here, other editors have raised concerns about this:

diff diff

This user has edit warred and repeatedly violated consensus, as well as engaging in tendetious editing; Just like the current dispute, his obstinacy, edit warring, lack of communication skills and violations of wikipedia policies have gotten him nowhere. Lately he even engaged in vandalism in his absurd proposal to merge Salting the earth with inner asia during the Tang dynasty. diff

In addition, Tenmei treats other editors with disrespect, striking out their comments. He also does not understand several key wikipedia policies, such as WP:Point. This is perhaps best illustrated here: diff diff

Tenmei also seems to have a troubled history on wikipedia, as evidenced here: diff diff diff diff diff

Other editors warned about his incivility, disruption, and even vandalism here: diff diff diff diff diff

Recently, he referred to fellow editors as "ilk" and decleared that edit warring was the "only practable way to proceed", as shown here: diff

He also has a history of dealing with others in bad faith and incivilly, as shown by a comment here: diff.

Here he accused another editor of being in a "conspiracy" diff.

In addition, here he created an attack page against one of the editors involved because he gave evidence unfavorable to Tenmei.diff

Tenmei's abuse of the dispute resolution system

Rather than seek consensus with other editors such as me, Pericles, Arilang1234, and Kraftlos, Tenmei used the dispute resolution system to hound other editors into submission and as a tool to get his way. He has also engaged in canvassing. I believed these views are best summarized by the below diffs: diff diff

He has tried this tactic before to get his way in a dispute with user:Nick Dowling: diff diff

I recommend a speedy close to this case and some sort of sanction for Tenmei so he does not again abuse the dispute resolution system to hound other editors.

Tenmei's communication problems

Simply put, Tenmei does not have any ability to communicate and work with other editors. Even the simplest conversation get tied up into WP:TLDR threads(as can be seen by his comments every where, no diffs needed). Questions to him and explanations rarely are answered. For example, on the workshop page, I repeatedly posed to him what "more" was expected besides citing your sources to confirm WP:V, but he did not answer my question, or rather, he gave a "non-answer". When dealing with other editors, he frequently repeats himself and does not respond to other editors' questions.

Evidence presented by Tenmei

Introduction. Conflation of issues is a common theme in archived ArbCom cases -- no less in this case than in Franco-Mongol_alliance or PHG. I initiated this ArbCom case to address three narrowly-focused issues which were sometimes conflated in the broader context of a fourth. In the alternative, Teeninvestor seeks to leverage or re-frame my temerity as the sole issue, conflating all issues into perceived problems with my "behaviour."

Teeninvestor cast a wide net to find evidence, investing more time in searching for "evidence" to discredit me than in trying to identify common ground. I don't understand why this wasn't wrongful WP:Canvassing; but it doesn't matter because Teeninvestor tactic proved to be unexpectedly beneficial. It helped me in re-focusing attention on the arc of my contributions. What matters most are the ways in which the quality of my contributions have been improved by participating in disputes, no less than what I have learned from other Wikipedia experiences.

The measure of ArbCom's success will play out in whatever manages to improve the quality of future contributions from the participants in this case. The initial layout of issues from my perspective is seemly and on point.

In my view, ArbCom's goal is to articulate and explain Wikipedia policies which provide a context in which an article is created.

Asserting RfA "Issue #1"

In this Euler diagram, "A"=article and/or non-English language text and "B"=Wikipedia policy which provides a context in which the article is created.
In this alternate diagram, "A"=article and/or non-English language text and "B"=Wikipedia policy which provides a context in which the article is created.

ArbCom intervention is needed because attempts to assert WP:V as a point of common agreement became an illustration of temerity. This ArbCom case begins with the temerity documented in the following:

The edit summary above attributes an inappropriate or improper POV as the explanation for my allegedly wrongful edits.

The edit summary below complains instead about deletions which are construed as unexplained, implying my passive failure to provide data with which to form an opinion, but also implying a pro-active campaign to exacerbate a dispute in which conventional wisdom is likely to adduce that "it takes two to tango":

Teeninvestor has variously construed my edits -- and indeed my attempt to use the dispute resolution system -- as a kind of effrontery, as played out in this short exchange:

The question for ArbCom becomes one of suggesting alternate strategies which could have mitigated this evolving problem? Whatever happened, it wasn't caused by something which can be adduced from within the unfolding diffs above.

Asserting RfA "Issue #2"

WP:V incorporating WP:Burden rejected by Teeninvestor -- diff.

Two adjacent diffs -- [1] and [2] -- are linked in Teeninvestor's complaints about my alleged "disruptive behavior." A cursory review of the edit history refutes this hollow complaint.

File:Tertiary source 144.jpg
One sentence: "He took the title, 'Heavenly Khan, thus designating himself as their ruler." at page 144 in Latourette, Kenneth Scott. (1934). The Chinese: Their History and Culture. New York: Macmillan. OCLC 220885107.

The subject of the following is WP:V incorporating WP:Burden:

Teeninvestor's accusation falls apart under closer scrutiny.

In contrast, G Purevdorj observed that while most of the Mongolia work group just perceived the vandalism and were flabbergasted that they were alone in doing so, your involvement at least managed to provoke evidence that is obvious for anyone to see.

The question for ArbCom becomes one of suggesting alternate strategies which could have mitigated this evolving problem?

Asserting RfA "Issue #3"

WP:RSUE incorporating WP:Burden rejected by Teeninvestor -- here. The subject of the following is WP:RSUE incorporating WP:Burden:

Summary:

For redundant clarity, these diffs demonstrate that it was not disruptive to seek further clarification, as I have felt compelled to do -- even to the point of initiating this ArbCom case in the absence of any other practicable option.

The question for ArbCom becomes one of suggesting alternate strategies which could have mitigated this evolving problem?

Asserting RfA "Issue #4"

Issues identified above became conflated in real-world disputes, e.g.,

The title of Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty suggests something to do with the history of 7th-8th century Central Asia, but an unexplained backstory or subtext intruded in the development of the article. Problems encountered in this article are emblematic of problems affecting unrelated editors and articles.

Teeninvestor argues that these issues are mooted by subsequent edits -- diff.

Teeninvestor proposes changing the article name to Tang-Gokturk wars -- diff.

The question for ArbCom becomes one of suggesting alternate strategies which could have mitigated this evolving problem?

ArbCom's purpose are fulfilled when the process affects more than just the parties' concerns and issues. WP:V and academic integrity must be an indispensable priority because, unlike "simple" incivility, the potential damage destroys the credibility of our encyclopedia. --Tenmei (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Yaan

I am not very familiar with arbitration, so I pre-emptively ask for forgiveness if I violate any formalities.

User:Teeninvestor has failed to show understanding of WP:RS

While it seems Teeninvestor understands WP:VERIFY (like here), he has several times failed to show understanding of WP:RS. Although the latter is just a guideline as opposed to a policy, I think it is quite crucial to Wikipedia's quality. Its sixth sentence reads "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." (Emph. mine).

In a small edit war, Teeninvestor has several times added maps from Commons as "sourced":

He has justified the re-addition of removed text with "Links provided prove that the book exists."

When asked, he was unable to point out why the authors of the source he used most often (more than 50% of the citations in the current article) should be "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". In fact, I get the impression he knows nothing about the authors of said source.

I don't think that "You don't have any source to show that my source is wrong" (My inference from Teeninvestor's proposed principles for this arbitration, [7], [8]) is enough to establish the reliability of a source. In any case I therefore reject these two proposed principles I just linked to.

Yaan (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Nick-D

I have not had any involvement in the Tang Dynasty article, but Teeninvestor (who I don't think that I've had any previous contact with and have no comments on) placed a note on my talk page noting that I'd been involved with Tenmei previously and asking what my opinion of them is. As I'm mentioned in his statement under my previous user name of Nick Dowling I'll comment on his comments on Tenmei's behavior; I have no views on the other issues under discussion in this RfA.

Tenmei's behaviour

I was one of several editors involved in a dispute with Tenmei over the Hyūga class helicopter destroyer‎ article (the essence of which can still be seen at: Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer). On the basis of this experience I endorse Teeninvestor's comments on Tenmei's behavior, and can confirm that the details he posted relating to the dispute on this article are correct. In this dispute Tenmei created a massive mountain out a molehill concerning a single sentance by posting vast and uncivil messages in which he never actually explained his position, despite repeated requests that he did so. He deliberetly sat out the process of developing consensus text on the issue in question and, in a clear WP:POINT violation, 'reset' (his word) the debate after consensus text had been endorsed by all the other involved editors ([9]). Despite the involvement of several other editors Tenmei personalised this dispute on me in a manner which, to be frank, I found disturbing. An attempt at mediation initiated by Tenmei collapsed before it began when I withdrew after he started canvassing against me with a highly disruptive editor - this obviously wasn't a sign of good faith! ([10]). Following this Tenmei continued his peronalisation of the conflict upon me by attempting to start a RfA on me, which was swiftly rejected by Arbcom.

Tenmei was warned against his behavior over this article repeated times ([11], [12], [13], [14], [15] and [16] are a few examples). As he has continued his highly disruptive pattern of posting vast quantities of text in arguments, making uncivil comments and personalising disputes ArbCom should consider imposing sanctions on Tenmei if this RfA is accepted. Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by User:Coldmachine

As with Nick-D I've no previous involvement with the Tang Dynasty article or this latest content dispute which involves Tenmei. I am responding here to a note placed on my talk page indicating that an ArbCom case had been filed and that, owing to my previous interactions with the filing party – in particular on Hyūga class helicopter destroyer where I attempted to mediate within an ongoing content dispute – my views on Tenmei's behaviour would be of assistance to the case and to the Committee.

Tenmei's behaviour

It is my experience that Tenmei means well in his/her approach to editing on the project; a number of articles have been improved in line with content guidelines, most notably WP:V, and the work of this editor must be considered - in my opinion – with WP:AGF in mind. I am without a doubt certain that Tenmei is guided by an underlying desire to better the encyclopaedia. The problems seem to develop during interaction with other community members.

While Tenmei seems guided by high standards in terms of editing content, s/he also seems unable to engage with the process of consensus building in a fashion which would yield an effective outcome. Tenmei has been warned[17] about obstructing the process of consensus building – which I witnessed in an attempt to ‘reset’ discussion, for example - and for refusing to present arguments in Plain English preferring an overly elaborate and convoluted presentation of views which could be considered disruptive editing – a behavioural guideline which covers any “campaign to drive away productive contributors...that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.” Other editors have commented on this also, for example here and at ANI.

While I have no knowledge of the current case, and would wager that this is rather another content dispute which needs to go through dispute resolution rather than waste the time of the ArbCom, I do believe that – despite good editing intentions and strict adherence to content policies – Tenmei’s inability to engage with his/her fellow editors is of concern and may therefore be of separate but relevant interest to the Committee. ColdmachineTalk 22:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by User:Bueller007

I have no prior history editing in the topic at hand. I was contacted by Teeninvestor to make a statement. I'll put it simply and more civilly than I have elsewhere:

  • Tenmei means well.
  • Tenmei (like myself) is argumentative, obstinate, and sometimes snarky.
  • Unlike myself, he is quick to resort to mediation, arbitration, (etc.) seemingly to the point where I would almost consider it "abuse of the system".
  • It is my personal opinion that he frequently edits on topics he knows little-to-nothing about, and does not heed the advice of people who know better. In the small portion of his edits that I have looked at, there have been a number of grievous errors.
  • Many of his edits are well-sourced but unproductive, IMO, plaguing Wikipedia with Wikipedia:Too_long;_didn't_read, like his comments that you see above. His edits often reduce the readability of Wikipedia significantly, even when they are factually correct. Use of tl;dr to "win" arguments seems to be part of his M.O.
  • For the most part I have given up trying to correct errors and tl;dr in his articles because I don't need the inevitable hassle.
  • As I'm largely ignorant of Chinese history I hesitate to say who is "correct" in the matter of the article at hand, but if references have been provided, and an "expert" has looked at the article and approved of it, then there shouldn't be a problem in making the statement. Using multilingual people from around the world to bring expertise from other languages into English Wikipedia is one of the great benefits of the system. It looks like English references have also been provided, so what's the problem? Bueller 007 (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by User:Penwhale

My statement may be incorrectly interpreted by Teeninvestor

I did not screen the book in any way. What I did was merely translated the page linked at the time. The page is a description from a Chinese on-line bookstore.

My statement posted needs to be taken as literally as possible; the information I provided was merely information gained from translating the description of the on-line bookstore.

And to be specific: I did not look at any text of the book itself; I cannot judge whether it is actually a history book without actually looking at the book.

Thus, I feel that Teeninvestor may have misconstrued my original statement. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 01:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Caspian blue

Tenmei shot himself in his foot with the ArbCom case

Tenmei (talk · contribs) wants to focus on the alleged misuse of sources by Teeninvestor (talk · contribs), given his contact to Arbitrator Coren (talk · contribs) just two days before he initiated the case. However, aside from his massive disruption to the article, he made a huge mistake as I said before; Tenmei listing uninvolved editors and 3O commentators as involved ones because they all criticized him. On the other hand, he excluded main disputers from the Central Asia project. The dispute initially started off with the the mutual nationalistic agenda: (3, 4, 5, 6, 7) Not to mention, the sockpuppet's disruption to the AFD, the latter group's canvassing and Tenmei's tag-teaming, bickering and edit waring are all disruptive; (1, 2). Oddly a recent motion attracted "some of uninvolved editors" who have been quiet about the ArbCom. They are almost inactive because the article title is changed to exclude "Mongolia" that can provoke nationalism.

Since this crux is missing, Tenmei's struggling to make WP:POINT (revising content policies solely based on his own definition) as well as attacking on Teeninvestor (talk · contribs) and editors are going nowhere but like a RfC/U on Tenmei's own behavior. Tenmei's failed WP:GAME reinforces that kind of ill-practice is not his first one.

Tenmei's long-term harassment

I'm totally uninvolved and have tried not to be part of the dispute, largely because I fear revenge campaigns by editors who have relentlessly harassed me for 7 months to 9 months; one is the abusive sockpuppeter and the other is Tenmei (talk · contribs). Unlike the banned user that I have to put up occasionally, Tenmei has been lurking my activity and pounces back whenever he seizes a moment. By documenting Tenmei's harassment and Wikihound, I expect the ArbCom stop Tenmei' making further damage and prevent him from harassing others.

On April 25. I briefly commented to a Teeninvestor's proposal, and then Tenmei resumed to attack me unlike to others' comments, and went to some admin to harass me again regardless of my previous stern warning to him on the same page. So if he did not poke on me, I may have just commented to the Workshop regardless Teeninvestor's repeated requests. Teeninverstor believes that I have a very strong case to prove Tenmei's long disruption.(1, 2)

When the Tang dispute occurred, I knew Tenmei do something drastic against Teeninvestor for making WP:POINT and WP:Wikilawyering given his history. Like PericlesofAthens' warning to Tenmei, I also noticed that Tenmei began hounding Teenivester just like he did to me. However, if I would report his second 3RR violation (he scorned my AGF on his previous violation) in my observation, he might've focused on me regardless of the fact that I did not edit the article at all because I've been marked as his enemy along with admin LordAmeth (talk · contribs) and Nick-D (talk · contribs) on Tenmei's user page. I naively thought that if my favorable statement for Tenmei on this arbcom, his wikihounding of me will be decreased and he'd learn how to communicate with others. However I was totally wrong on that. He even proposed a motion to include me as a party with his conspiracy theory and mocked me.

I first encountered Tenmei for a merge discussion which was supposed to have no controversy, but he suddenly without any reason attacked my ethnicity and taunted my ancestors and my edits to other articles totally irrelevant of the subject. Then he preposterously nominated the article in ongoing discussion to AfD, and demonized me during the whole AfD discussion. LordAmeth who was in the merge discussion and has observed him for a long time, gave him a long warning and suggested me to take the matter to ANI. After some research, Tenmei has harassed not only me but also admin Nick-D and other editors for similar obscure reasons: WP:V. However, just like Nick-D's ANI report on Tenmei, my report did not make him changed a bit because of his too lengthy and unintelligible ramblings. Since then I have had to endure Tenmei's harassment and trolling.--Caspian blue 01:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much more to come

Tenmei's recent ad hominem attacks

Teeninvestor informed me that Tenmei made an attack page against me on May 2 The page is filled with horrendous ad hominem attacks] and cherry picking just like Nick-D's prediction and his previous ones like this and that. The subpage was once deleted by B, but he cherrypicked anything about me on the subpage even thought we were in no contact at that time. Tenmei harassed the admin B (talk · contribs) too.See the edit summary Sadly those attacks are not even new from Tenmei that I've received. One question is why he forgot to mention about his wikistalking me to WJBScribe page and the sockpuppeters blocked by my RFCU. I echo Teeninverstor and Nick-D's suggestion that Tenmei deserves strong ArbCom sanction perhaps like the ArbCom case initiator[18]. His WP:GAME with the case has exhausted the editors. Funnily his intro statement is what many editors have been talking about Tenmei. He even tries to justify his user page that attacks "his enemies" to an admin. He also visited an admin to continue his harassment.--Caspian blue 22:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tenmei's hollow and WP:POINTY accusations against Teeninvestor

Tenmei has gradually added more allegations which are much beyond his initial statement. Tenmei obviously takes my statement as his inspiration, such as quoting some user's ArbCom case, a list of articles that use the Chinese book[19][20], RS board and the sockpupper's activities, etc.. At the same time, Tenmei is constantly checking my other activity to get out of the valid criticism on Tenmei's disruption, raised by editors. He does not care about improving the article at all nor listen to criticism on him. Moreover, it is contradictory that Tenmei accuses Teeninvestor of canvassing given his own canvassing to many unrelated editors[21][22][23][24]. Tenmei accues Teeninvestor as confussing with the IP sock. It is not new that Tenmei has attacked "ethnicity" of editors such as see his usage of {{one china}} and accused the IP user of "PRC-sponsored vandalism".[25] (more to come)

Tenmei's way of communication

I considered Tenmei's trimming of a "15160 bytes length evidence" could be a sign of his "big" improvement after criticism on his WP:TLDR. However, he then relocated the deleted argument to the Workshop and ArbCom and article talk pages.(1, 2) His hyperbolic, accusatory and long-winged arguments show his inability to communicate others in civil way. He even lectures arbitrators about "English meanings" by quoting wikitionary. I've never seen that even native English speakers arrogantly insult like "you should click the links and learn about the meaning". Likewise, his WP:SOAPBOX and WP:BATTLE arguments tend to derail actual content. Tenmei's typical behaviors are well shown in his "own" documentation for this ArbCom case; incapability of abiding by WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:POINT, WP:NPOV, WP:3RR, WP:GAME, WP:FORUM, WP:HARASSMENT, WP:Troll, WP:DICK.

The Chinese book

Inherently, it is not avoidable that the article has a favorable view for Tang China because existent ancient sources on Göktürks and Xueyantuo are all recorded by Chinese. So modern Western scholarship on Inner Asia which is still at the beginning stage, tends to reflect ancient Chinese view and English secondary sources are very scarce. To end the dispute, I suggest two ways; 1) scanning the book and sending it to the ArbCom clerk via Email to confirm the content or 2) using alternative sources. For the latter, I found some English and Korean reputable sources that can cover general contents and rebut Tenmei's accusation. As for detailed information, I guess Documents sur les Tou-kiue (Turcs) occidentaux (1900) written by Édouard Chavannes can be reference since the book is a comprehensive research on Chinese ancient documents on Göktürks.

More to come

Evidence presented by {Arilang1234}

Teeninvester is a good contributer towards China related articles, be it Tang, Ming, or Qing.

User Tenmei has communication problem

On limited times that I had interacted with user Tenmei, he/she does have communication problem, in the sense that he/she would present large amount of irrelevant material and hence create unnecessary and time-wasting arguments, and he/she seem to enjoy these never ending arguments. That is why I have advice user Teeninvestor, regardless of any arguments, just ignore and advoid him/her at all cost. Arilang talk 21:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tang_Dynasty/Evidence&oldid=287533537"