Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Locus of dispute: adding shortcut box
m →{topic}: creading "Burden of proof" section
Line 2,535: Line 2,535:
::[[User:Tenmei]] treats editors and arbitrators here consisting of mostly native English speakers as editor with difficulty in knowing/understanding of such simple English words. I recommend [[User:Tenmei]] at least replace to use the unreliable [[Wiktionary]] with [[Oxford English Dictionary]] or other reputable dictionaries. If not, his demonstration of [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] is proven as contradiction.--[[User talk:Caspian blue|'''Caspian''' blue]] 15:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
::[[User:Tenmei]] treats editors and arbitrators here consisting of mostly native English speakers as editor with difficulty in knowing/understanding of such simple English words. I recommend [[User:Tenmei]] at least replace to use the unreliable [[Wiktionary]] with [[Oxford English Dictionary]] or other reputable dictionaries. If not, his demonstration of [[WP:V]] and [[WP:RS]] is proven as contradiction.--[[User talk:Caspian blue|'''Caspian''' blue]] 15:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


=== {topic} ===
=== Burden of rroof ===
The second paragraph at [[Burden of proof]] explains:
:"Under the Latin maxim ''necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit'', the general rule is that "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains." The burden of proof, therefore, usually lies with the party making the new claim. The exception to this rule is when a [[prima facie]] case has been made."

The first two sentences of [[Prima facie]] explain:
:"Prima facie ({{pron-en|ˈpraɪmə ˈfeɪʃiː}}, from Latin ''prīmā faciē)'' is a [[List of Latin phrases|Latin expression]] meaning ''on its first appearance'', or ''by first instance''; ''at first sight''. The literal translation would be "first face", ''prima'' first, ''facie'' face. It is used in modern legal English to signify that on first examination, a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts."

It may be possible to restate the locus of dispute using these arguably useful terms.

* If compliance with [[WP:CITE]] creates a "prima facie" compliance with [[WP:V]], then [[User:Tenmei|Tenmei]] is simply wrong ''a priori.''

* If compliance with [[WP:CITE]] <u>does not<u> establish a "prima facie" compliance with [[WP:V]], then [[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]] misconstrues the burden of proof which remains necessary in order to comply with [[WP:V]].


:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''
:'''Comment by Arbitrators:'''

Revision as of 20:48, 14 May 2009

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

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Motion to encompass Caspian blue as "involved" party

(1) The arguably constructive contributions of Caspian blue have been specifically noted by John Vandenberg, FayssalF and Sam Blacketer.

However, the context of the following exchange of messages and the off-wiki communication these histories reveal was enough to give me pause.

The subsequent new direction of Teeninvestor's expansive argument at "We need to refocus the debate" persuades me that the polite fiction of an "uninvolved Caspian blue" must be abandoned.

Select revision history of User talk:Teeninvestor

Select revision history of User talk:Caspian blue

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]

Initially, I thought it might be necessary to underscore the participation of Caspian blue; but the contributions of all participants in the development of this ArbCom appear to speak for themselves well enough.
As below, I would have thought the issues in this ArbCom case should be reasonably limited to those which were contemplated within the statements which informed RfA voting. The potential benefits are not likely to outweigh the plausible costs of expanding the number of parties. This motion no longer seems necessary; and ArbCom's consideration of this motion might evolve into a distraction.
Withdrawal: For these reasons, I withdraw this motion. --Tenmei (talk) 20:14, 5 May 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:
Comment by Tenmei: 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 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 swath of conduct would be needed? --Tenmei (talk) 03:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The issues in this ArbCom case should be reasonably limited to those which can be arguably show to have been contemplated within the statements which informed RfA voting. The potential benefits are not likely to outweigh the plausible costs of expanding the scope of this ArbCom case beyond what was encompassed within the initial statements of the parties and other participants at that early stage, e.g., Tenmei, diff and Teeninvestor, diff, etc.
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:
I agree with the proposal to include Tenmei's pattern of behavior as an issue in this case. Tenmei's conduct is an ongoing problem, and attempts to raise this at AN/I and elsewhere have been repeatedly drowned out by the vast quantities of poorly organised text he posts in response. Admins don't have the time or inclination to plow through this and nothing gets resolved. Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Tenmei should stop harassing editors for now

1) Inappropriate conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. However, as I predicted, Tenmei (talk · contribs) has been very aggressively harassing and attacking me after I started commenting to Workshop. Not to mention, Tenmei's long term harassment and wikistalking of me and recent incidents are all intolerable(1, 2) and I believe such behaviors are seriously damaging the community. I feel very unsafe by such relentless intimidation and other two editors also noticed Tenmei's behaviors to me and informed me.[1][2][3] The ArbCom page is not own by Tenmei, and I have a right to present evidences that the community should know. So I request the ArbCom stop Tenmei's harassing[4][5][6][7], making personal attacks[8][9][10], bogus accusations based on his cherry picking[11][12][13], forum shopping[14][15][16][17], and gaming the system[18][19][20][21] to not only myself, but also editors who comment to the case.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I agree fully. Tenmei has repeatedly attacked other editors such as Caspian Blue, and he is continuing to do so. This behaviour cannot be allowed.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Tenmei: It bears repeating that the arguably constructive contributions of Caspian blue have been specifically noted by John Vandenberg, FayssalF and Sam Blacketer. The quality of the prose in that earlier writing is distinguishable from what is presented above. The difference in the organization, reasoning, and tone above and that earlier text also deserves to be underscored.
In this request for some kind of decision-making by ArbCom, Caspian blue strings together a series of wiki-catchphrases without attempting to explain whether these are to be understood as nested or unrelated complaints. The unique wiki-terms which have been developed as community shorthand are tossed out with indiscriminate abandon -- tossed like mud with no purpose other than to create an illusory impression:
Who can tell me what the above assemblage is supposed to mean? Who knows what anyone is supposed to make of this disorganized display of unrelated items? It is not my burden to parse the lists of complaints Caspian blue concocts out of fantasized victimization; but it is my responsibility to distinguish between allegations which are pulled together for no other purpose than to cause harm and the quite different data set which is organized for constructive, discernible and appropriate purposes. This list is plainly nothing more than the former, but if I had not responded as I have done, I suspect that it would have been treated as if it were the latter.
In all likelihood, I will have now invested more time and careful attention in trying to analyze, understand and respond to these complaints than Caspian blue invested in creating it in the first place.
  • Looking backwards (antebellum), on the basis of this data set, how could anyone develop a sense of what Tenmei has done or should have done in the past?
  • Looking forwards (postbellum), how could anyone develop a sense of what Tenmei should not do or should try to avoid doing in the future?
This ArbCom case is not the place to resolve questions like these; and it should not be tolerant of those who propose and support such hollow, harmful, and insubstantial charges.
Oppose: The issues in this ArbCom case should be reasonably limited to those which can be arguably show to have been contemplated within the statements which informed WP:RfA voting. The potential benefits are not likely to outweigh the plausible costs of expanding the scope of this ArbCom case beyond what was encompassed within the initial statements of the parties and other participants at that early stage. --Tenmei (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Proposed. --Caspian blue 22:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As of now, Tenmei is still engaging in the harassment and ad hominen attacks. See the 2nd question for Tenmei.--Caspian blue 17:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]
Soliciting specificity
Question: Are there any of your own words which you would now like to delete or strike-out?
Reformatted questions arising from Teeninvestor's contributions to the development of a record since this ArbCom case was "opened." --Tenmei (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing the same issues in different words: Your response below does not appear to be related to the questions and issues posed in this ArCom case. Will you please reconsider or add to what you've already written? Will you try again in different words to help me understand your point of view in terms of the specifics of this ArbCom case? --Tenmei (talk) 15:32, 11 May 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
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) -- Teeninvestor
  • (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.
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]
Soliciting specificity
Question 1: What specifically was "deleted without explanation by Tenmei and others"?
Question 2: Other than these two "friends", who did you mean to include within "WP:3O from other editors"?
Question 3: Who participated in the exchange of views which becomes the hallmark of "working with existing editors"?
Question 4: How and when did the the elements of agreement fall into place as you "helped form a consensus"?
Question 5: What did you intend to be understood as the "consensus not accepted by Tenmei"?
Question 5 -- alternate wording: How did Tenmei violate WP:Consensus on March 15, 2009? -- diff
Reformatted questions arising from Teeninvestor's "evidence." --Tenmei (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing the same issues in different words: Your response below does not appear to be related to the specific questions and issues posed in this section. Will you please reconsider or add to what you've already written? Will you try again in different words to help me understand your point of view in terms of the specifics identified above? --Tenmei (talk) 15:19, 11 May 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.

In terms of the article, you deleted much sourced material saying it was "violative" of WP:V, by saying it is "unaccessible". That is clear vandalism and a massive violation of wikipedia policy;. You even engaged in vandalism(attempting to "merge" the article with another one). ArbCom needs to stop this kind of disruptive behaviour. 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:
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.
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]
Soliciting specificity
Question -- locus of dispute: Are you unwilling or unable to present evidence in a form which allows a reasoned response?
Reformatted question arising from Teeninvestor's "evidence." --Tenmei (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing the same issues in different words: Your response below does not appear to be related to the specific questions and issues posed in this section. Will you please reconsider or add to what you've already written? Will you try again in different words to help me understand your point of view in terms of the specifics identified above? --Tenmei (talk) 15:21, 11 May 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. Also see the question below I posed to Tenmei, which he gave a non-answer. Obviously, I have presented evidence in a way that is easy to read and clear(unlike Tenmei's comments, though now shortened.)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]

Soliciting specificity
Question:What does anything to do with "Tenmei's behaviour" have to do with Issues #1, #2, #3 and #4 which were identified as central reasons for this ArbCom case to be opened?
Question -- locus of dispute: Are you unwilling or unable to present evidence in a form which allows a reasoned response?
Reformatted questions arising from Teeninvestor's "evidence." --Tenmei (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing the same issues in different words: Your response below does not appear to be related to the specific questions and issues posed in this section. Will you please reconsider or add to what you've already written? Will you try again in different words to help me understand your point of view in terms of the specifics identified above? --Tenmei (talk) 15:21, 11 May 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]

Well, I'm pleased to see he's shortened his comments, but his question is most misleading. In fact, i was working on the article the whole time, while Tenmei was disrupting my work(through deleting sourced material as "non-compliant with WP:V", and rejecting all attempts to improve the article. It is him, not me, that stopped work on the article. Tenmei's behaviour can clearly show why many users thought documenting his behaviour is the right thing to do.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1st question for Tenmei: Do you understand WP:V?

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.
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 a contributor is "required to provide citations and standard bibliographical information; [and] that is all [that is required]" -- ergo, as you assert diff. In other words, 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.nIn short, 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.
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]
Answering again -- new words, alternate approach
In the context established by this diff, it seems fair to conclude that Tenmei's attempts to engage in discussing any issues are rejected as "non-responsive." This attempt to respond with different words focuses on the terse query which Teeninvestor emphasized in bold:
Question: Do you understand WP:V?
Shortcuts
Teeninvestor -- The mild assertion that I do understand core policies well enough has proven to be inadequate. I anticipate that these issues will be somewhat clarified by ArbCom's resolution of this case.
  • In future, we may be guided by our experience in this narrow ArbCom case.
  • In future, the archived diffs of this minor ArbCom case may represent a foundation from which to build.
  • In future, the factors of decision-making in this small ArbCom case may be construed as an accessible template for parsing the elements of disputes unrelated to Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. --Tenmei (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shortcuts
The journey towards this ArbCom case began here or here? When I initially requested further information pursuant WP:V + WP:BURDEN, I believed that inquiry was unremarkable. I anticipated any number of plausible responses. Instead, I struggled to understand Teeninvestor rejection of both the substance of the inquiry and the mere fact that I'd raised any questions at all. I was also forced to figure out what to do with the perceived effrontery in my reasonable person standard appeals.
Alternate responses to this request for more information anticipate Taemyr's unimpeachable analysis, i.e., that a reference source can not be deemed reliable without reference to the specific facts which it is confirming or verifying --diff:
  • G Purevdorj offered to work with Teeninvestor, initially suggesting that it would be possible to take a look if the the preface and relevant pages were scanned and e-mailed -- diff.
  • PericlesofAthens sought to verify the questioned text by comparing the specific attributed statements with other credible sources -- see link; but results of this investigation are not yet reflected in the article itself.
Shortcuts
The curious attempt to change the focus of discussion to parsing distinctions in related terms like "unverifiable" and "inaccessible" blurs the bright line of Teeninvestor denial of reasonable inquiry about the fundamental "credibility" of statements which are derived from just one dubious source. The otherwise unavoidable necessity for this ArbCom case is demonstrated and summarized in the contrast between only two diffs:
"We appear to confront a small scale replica of what has occurred in other, wider disputes. In my view, the the words and actions of what Teeninvestor wrongly characterizes as a "tag team" have been consistently informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point of this escalating drama:
Shortcut
  • 1. What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
  • 2. What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does the source reflect that consensus?
  • 3. Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
  • 4. Are unsourced assertions being used?
As others will know better than me, these four points are, unsurprisingly, at the center of most protracted disputes and are all violations of our core content policies, e.g., verifiability, no original research and neutrality."
"This guy is out of control, man. That's all i have to say."
Shortcut
There is no match-up the substance, the language and the tone of these diffs. There is no easily identified relationship between Tenmei's words and the reaction those words are presumed to have engendered. Teeninvestor proffers an assessment of behavioral mis-steps, accusatory language and an exasperated tone which has repeated again and again at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty, in this ArbCom case, and at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Attack page
What I don't yet understand is how to respond effectively. --Tenmei (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the same issues in different words: This is a straw man question. Any response only perpetuates the gambit. --Tenmei (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this question might be re-phrased or re-drafted using different words? --Tenmei (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2nd question for Tenmei

Before this case was accepted by the Committee, you could sense that the general opinion on your conduct to the article of Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty was very negative. Except you, none of the involved editors wanted to take the dispute to ArbCom and you have (or had) no "backup" for your action. However, why did not you even propose a motion for the four editors, GenuineMongol (talk · contribs), Gantuya eng (talk · contribs), Yaan (talk · contribs), and G Purevdorj (talk · contribs) from "WP:WikiProject Central Asia" to be a party? (you instead requested a motion against me, the totally uninvolved editor). --Caspian blue 01:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Caspian blue Applying the reasonable man standard to Caspian blue's participation in the development of this ArbCom case, one conclusion only can be adduced -- that it is pointless even to try to engage in meaningful dialogue. Caspian blue's demonstrable, over-riding goal is not resolution of any issue, but rather the perpetuation of conflict by contriving additional causes for controversy ad nauseam. The constructive, timely, outside the box comment here and this singular question represent the exceptions which prove the rule.

In the dour, impossible context Caspian blue contrives again and again, one word in the diff above craves the spotlight.

In the short phrase, "a motion against me," Caspian blue's selection of the term "against" (in the sense of "versus") is not insignificant.

At best, Caspian blue's word choice merely suggests the habitual mindset of a zero-sum game. The cumulative wreckage documented by Caspian blue's contribution history is sometimes mirrored in miniature. This timely word choice represents one such instance.

Another narrowly specific illustrative example -- here -- can serve ArbCom's broader purposes in the clarifying perspective of compare and contrast. Subsequent archiving and merges make it difficult to retrieve the precise diffs,

In my view, this thread can be brought to a close; and further discussion would be better continued at Talk:Korean missions to Edo#Merge. However, I do want to ameliorate a modest problem before it grows any bigger. It may be clarifying to underscore just one explicit point-of-view in this closing context.
Today, now, at this moment: there is no correct or incorrect, no pro- or con-, no right or wrong, nothing to be "against" -- no dispute at all; and in my opinion, it would be a needless mistake to begin down any path which leads towards controversy rather than consensus. In that broad sense only, Caspian blue's word-choice of "against" within the narrow confines of a single sentence appears somewhat unhelpful, premature, discouraging. --Tenmei (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Be civil--Caspian blue (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pivotal transformation between "A" and "B" illustrates and exemplifies a kind of toxic alchemy which subverts all hope for collaborative work. This red flag was poorly understood in 2008; but lessons learned the hard way make it less difficult to recognize in 2009. In the relevant context established at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty -- here, it becomes merely prudent to acknowledge Caspian blue is a toxic long-term warrior.

Reiterating my own prescient words from 2008: [I]t would be a needless mistake to begin down any path which leads towards controversy rather than consensus. --Tenmei (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soliciting specificity
Question:What does this valid question have to do with Issues #1, #2, #3 and #4 which were identified as central reasons for this ArbCom case to be opened?
Question -- locus of dispute: Are you unwilling or unable to present evidence in a form which allows a reasoned response?
Answering a question with a question arising from Caspian blue's "evidence." --Tenmei (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the same issues in different words: This is a straw man question. Any response only perpetuates the gambit. --Tenmei (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this question might be re-phrased or re-drafted using different words? --Tenmei (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Caspian blue:

User:Tenmei does not answer to my question at all and rather make another accusatory and rhetorical questions. Everyone have their "own" perspective, and I've seen the dispute originally stemming from "nationalism" between two ethnic groups unlike you think. Why do you think that your proposal to delete the direct page which contains "Mongolia" has attracted editors who are "officially uninvolved editors"? However, they are indeed main disputers aside from Tenmei, Teeninvestor and the sockpuppeter because some of them engaged in "canvassing", "tag-teaming" and edit warring". I think I've given many hints in my first statement to you that you can salvage the sinking wreck. However, you have chosen odd ways. If you can not answer my question at all, then do not derail the issue that I've raised.--Caspian blue 14:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So User:Tenmei, you rather choose continuing "ad hominen attacks" accusing that I'm "unwilling" or "unable" to work collectively with you and I'm a toxic edit warrior (how many time I've been insulted by you with the name calling. More than 5 times?), instead of answering my good faith question. You were edit waring/ tag-teaming/ disrupting not only to the questioned article but to Wikipedia, so that means you're asserting yourself "toxic long-term warrior" based on "bad faith". I'm gonna add this another evidence as your personality and incapability to communicate others that should be under ArbCom's control. Thank you for the reconfirmation on my view.--Caspian blue 17:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3rd question for Tenmei: Why do you remove sources just because they are "unaccessible"?

Before I arrived at the article, the article had several well-known and reliable sources, which backed up large amounts of information. However, you deleted them all because they were "unaccessible" and "useless" in your words. (diff diff diff diff.) You more or less reduced the article from a big one to virtually a stub. I attempted to add some information and this dispute began. My question for you is: How can you justify removing sources simply because they are unaccessible to you? Don't you know that verifiability is verfiability in principle, not for every reader? Do you understand that removing whole sourced paragraphs just because of "non-standard citation formats" is wrong and borderline vandalism? Teeninvestor (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Teeninvestor

Addressing the same issues in different words: This is a straw man question. Any response only perpetuates the gambit. --Tenmei (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this question might be re-phrased or re-drafted using different words? --Tenmei (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4th question for Tenmei: How come you didn't comply with your own definition of WP:V?

Based on your definition of WP:V, any source which others do not have the oppurtunity to examine are faulty and does not comply with WP:V diff. Then, according to this definition, you have not complied with WP:V at all, since I have no oppurtunity whatsoever to identify this source you used:

(French) 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.

Therefore, you have violated your own definition of WP:V(which was faulty in the first place). How do you reconcile this failure? Do you realize your conception of WP:V is wrong?

Why would I withdraw this question? My source is published by two editors in a reputable Chinese publisher who has published many editions of this book, so it's reliability is assured. You argue that my source is not credible because it's inaccessible. How accessible is your source, I'd like to ask? Where can I get it?
And which one of my citations did not comply with wikipedia's standards? See, why don't you apply your standards. Where can I get this book, I ask you? Where's the French text in the citations? don't you need translated text in all the citations?Teeninvestor (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Teeninvestor

This question is a needless embarrassment for you. Rather than answering, I feel that I really need to give you an opportunity to reconsider. On further reflection, I can only hope that you will recognize the need to withdraw what you've drafted? --Tenmei (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The following was moved from "Analysis of evidence presented by Yaan" where it had been posted since 29 April 2009 -- diff.
Teeninvestor -- The initial response to this question only addresses an element of the conflated array of implications and issues.
As you may recall, 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. Looking back, it seems that this became a first step leading to the RfA in this case.
I could have framed my inquiry in terms of WP:RS, as Yaan 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 there any bibliographic reference sources noted. For redundant clarity, I re-copy those notes which incorporate links:
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 Yaan 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), is inconclusive. In the absence of credible information about the authors or the publisher, Inner Mongolia People's Publishing House (内蒙古人民出版社), the fact that Teeninvestor's citations conform to a recognizable 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.
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 novice editor, 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 soon became clear that, for example,
  • 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 didn't appreciate that, by virtue of his inherited shogunate office, Hayashi was also the one person most responsible for ensuring the continuing 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, expanding and/or watchlisting articles which establish a context for any contributions from this reference source, e.g.,
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.,
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:
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 perspective 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.
Perhaps in the process of refreshing your memory about what I wrote in April, I will have managed to encourage you to re-draft and re-focus your question? For redundant clarity, I've recopied the notes from that article. In some cases, these notes include specific links to the exact page being cited.
This explanation is the work of a careful, conscientious Wikipedia contributor. In the context your new question creates, I have to wonder what part did you not understand when you read it the first time a fortnight ago? --Tenmei (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing the same issues in different words: This is a straw man question. Any response only perpetuates the gambit. --Tenmei (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this question might be re-phrased or re-drafted using different words? --Tenmei (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5th question for Tenmei: Why do you accuse me of being a PRC-sponsered vandal?

In your evidence, you put the contributions of the disruptive IP editor along with me and accused me of sockpuppetry and being part of a "PRC-sponsered attack" [diff, when you had no evidence whatsoever. Why did you make this claim? Teeninvestor (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Teeninvestor

Addressing the same issues in different words: This is a straw man question. Any response only perpetuates the gambit. --Tenmei (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this question might be re-phrased or re-drafted using different words? --Tenmei (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6th question for Tenmei: Why do you not answer other editors' questions?

Do you not know it is rude to not answer these questions? Do you know this is a part of ArbCom's process. Do you realize not answering my questions will reflect poorly on you? And please, don't copy and paste the same comment you had above under this question.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Teeninvestor

In answer to the specific questions you pose:

(a) No, there is nothing rude in acknowledging a question which can't be answered.
(b) Yes, I do appreciate that this is part of ArbCom's process.
(c) No, the exercise of informed judgment does not reflect poorly on anyone.

A reasonable man standard evolves in specific circumstances like this one. I don't claim that I fully understand this curious term, but I do try to be guided by my best guesses about how a reasonable man would respond or comment in the contexts I discover.

The prospect of a new direction for this ArbCom case always remains a possibility. I would hope you understand that this possibility is in your hands. --Tenmei (talk) 02:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this question might be re-phrased or re-drafted using different words? --Tenmei (talk) 20:05, 13 May 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]

The work of sockpuppets is not construed as a "vested interest." --Tenmei (talk) 19:50, 13 May 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 the same conduct, which is known as recidivism. 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

Locus of dispute

1) Locus of dispute -- the parties are contributing at cross purposes to each other. --Tenmei (talk) 00:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 redirect page

The "nine dots" puzzle.
One of many solutions to the puzzle.

1) Mongolia during Tang rule, which is a redirect page, should be deleted. Rather than suggesting draft text, this outside the box proposal calls for an action.

Restatement of over-view principle. ArbCom's written decision in this case needs to be drafted so that others contributors in future disputes will be able to discern implied guidance and an arguably useful decision-making template which is composed of a few causally-related steps. Rather than suggesting draft text, this proposed outside the box remedy challenges ArbCom to divine what the participants cannot see for themselves.

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 participants 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. --Tenmei (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by Tenmei: I reiterate the first paragraph of G Purevdorj comments below as if they were my own:
  • 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."
  • See Mongolia: "And yes, of course there were no Mongols in 7th century ... [and] Tang overlordship was only temporary" -- diff by Yaan 16:45, 19 February 2009
There is nothing here that good nature or good will can mitigate. This redirect page needs to be deleted for the following reasons:
A. Circumstances of creation?: It is relevant that Mongolia during Tang rule and a corollary article about Tibet were created on the same day by the same Sarsfs:
It is relevant that each of these battlefields was created with an investment of mere minutes. Both travesties were contrived within minutes of each other --see here ... and the pernicious effects are measured in hours wasted by those who were misguided by the hortatory WP:AGF.
B. Dubious/banned creator?: These companion articles have been identified as likely creations of a banned sockpuppet -- diff
C. Specious body of text?: No single element of the original article survived cursory review applying the minimal standards of core policies. Only the title remains. The harmful contributions of this toxic long-term warrior have been dissipated using conventional editing procedures, but this article title is wrongly accorded "vested" status similar to that of any other article created by an anonymous contributor. When the consensus of participants in the thread agreed to delete the lingering redirect page, it was the sole vestige of a disruptive problem here which had been created for disruptive purposes. This small step was blocked because of the intervention of the toxic IP-anonymous contributor we now know as the likely sock puppet of banned entity.
At this point, the "vested" trouble-maker's disruptive editing had been addressed seriatim -- see examples at "Analysis of evidence presented by Patar knight"-below. However, without participating in the discussion which preceded the attempt to remove the redirect page, the work was blocked by a claim that "consencus was made out entirely of pro mongolian editors." In other words, the anonymous participant blocked the removal of this title even after its specious text was removed. The edit summary illustrates the specious rationale which preserved this redirect page.
D. Title is "toxic, not vested"?:Wikipedia's rules and policies are effectively perverted by the retention of this redirect page. The respect for "vested" interests of a banned sockpuppet are are elevated above the explicit judgment of the concerned and informed editors who participated in developing this article up to this point. Mongolia during Tang rule should be deleted now. Expressed differently, "long term warriors are toxic, not vested" ....
E. Toxic orphan?: The name of this article will change as soon as this ArbCom case is decided. Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty will probably become Tang-Gokturk wars -- see link ... which will position this orphan title at an even further remove from its awkward genesis. Regardless, the malicious intent of the creator of this article has been addressed in all respects save in the continuing existence of this lingering redirect page. The tone of the excerpted comments which follow is revealing:
These diffs make plain that this was an unfunny joke to begin with; and now that the seeds of disruption have matured into an ArbCom case, it would be reasonable for everyone to take note of the way in which Wikipedia's systematic attempts to invite participation by the broadest range of contributors has been so effectively perverted across a span of months and hundreds of hours. For redundant emphasis, this tragic waste has played out across the talk pages of several articles in addition to the dispute resolution pages identified in the long-ago RfA.
F. Context of long-disputed relationships with China?: This lingering redirect page was ab initio the petty work of childish immaturity. However, the taxonomic categories applicable to regions of central Asia is a topic of long-standing scholarly attention, not only during the 7th-8th centuries, e.g.,
Yaan explains here: In 1911, the Qing dynasty and China were regarded as completely different concepts by the Mongols and the Chinese, citing Veronika Veit's "Qalqa 1691 bis 1911," in Michael Weiers (ed.), Die Mongolen, Beitraege zu ihrer Geschichte und Kultur, p. 444:
G. Context of collaborative consensus?: Although Teeninvestor wrongly diminishes the value of the consensus of participants on March 1-2, this proposed remedy is the final gesture of helpful service I can offer in the context of what turned out to be a unique collaborative experience.
In presenting this, I honor and acknowledge the collective good achieved while working with these wiki-colleagues; and I demonstrate that I learned something in our work together. When Teeninvestor's edits at Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty began to change the character of the article into an exegesis on Tang-Gokturk wars, the re-focusing of the article's content largely resolved the core of the problem Sarsfs created in February. However, something still remains to be done about this persistent redirect page. --Tenmei (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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]
On second thought, I've decided this article should retain it's current name after the ArbCom Case. I will create a seperate article on Tang-Gokturk wars.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding the plausible utility of archived ArbCom decisions

The "nine dots" puzzle.
One of many solutions to the puzzle.

2) The outside the box resolution I want are sentences that I could have copied for Teeninvestor to read on March 16th. I'm trying to imagine writing that is so clear and explicit that Teeninvestor would have said, "Aha! I see what Tenmei is trying to say; but it will take a little time to provide the minimal WP:V-compliant information which Wikipedia policy requires." And this dispute could have been ended before any acrimony has a chance to develop. ArbCom's perspective may be able to identify one or more ways in which this dispute could have been avoided or the conflicts minimized. How might the parties themselves might have collaborated more effectively? ArbCom might, in this case and in every case, consider ways dysfunctional collaboration can be mitigated. Rather than suggesting draft text, this outside the box proposal calls for an action.

Restatement of over-view principle. ArbCom's written decision in this case needs to be drafted so that others contributors in future disputes will be able to discern implied guidance and an arguably useful decision-making template which is composed of a few causally-related steps. Rather than suggesting draft text, this proposed outside the box remedy challenges ArbCom to divine what the participants cannot see for themselves.

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 participants 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. --Tenmei (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by Teeninvestor:
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 Tenmei: 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 Teeninvestor might have used something from an archived ArbCom case to explain a 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. In another setting, such gestures will be received differently. --Tenmei (talk) 22:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it

The "nine dots" puzzle.
One of many solutions to the puzzle.

3) The outside the box resolution I want are sentences which help make clear to each particpant what he/she could have done better, what he/she did correctly, what he/she did wrong. Recidivism can't be avoided if the dispute resolution process moves along without devoting constructive attention to those who most need to understand if future problems are to be mitigated or averted. ArbCom's perspective may be able to identify one or more ways in which this dispute could have been avoided or the conflicts minimized. How might the parties themselves might have collaborated more effectively? ArbCom might, in this case and in every case, consider ways dysfunctional collaboration can be mitigated. Rather than suggesting draft text, this outside the box proposal calls for an action.

Restatement of over-view principle. ArbCom's written decision in this case needs to be drafted so that others contributors in future disputes will be able to discern implied guidance and an arguably useful decision-making template which is composed of a few causally-related steps. Rather than suggesting draft text, this proposed outside the box remedy challenges ArbCom to divine what the participants cannot see for themselves.

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 participants 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. --Tenmei (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Commment by Tenmei: In the context suggested a priori at the initial WP:RfA in my Response to FloNight, ArbCom needs to do what it can to avert recidivism by helping the parties to understand what happened and why.
In part, this ArbCom case was opened to resolve the following:
  • Teeninvestor insists that Tenmei engages in persistent disruption. If so, it needs to stop; but no less important, Tenmei needs to understand what was wrong, why, and what to do in future to avoid making the same mistake.
  • Teeninvestor insists that Tenmei engages in persistent vandalism. If so, it needs to stop; but no less important, Tenmei needs to understand what was wrong, why, and what to do in future to avoid making the same mistake.
  • Alternately, if these allegations of disruptive editing and vandalism were unmerited, Teeninvestor needs to understand why and what to do in future to avoid making the same mistake.
There are other participants in this ArbCom case. The investment of time and attention will be squandered if only Tenmei benefits from participation in this process. --Tenmei (talk) 22:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Wikipedia as a zero-sum game

The "nine dots" puzzle.
One of many solutions to the puzzle.

4) The outside the box resolution I want acknowledges that, in theory, the skewed view of Wikipedia as a zero-sum game is an oxymoron; but a conflation of these concepts happens on a regular basis. This ArbCom dispute illustrates the consequences which flow from such conflated misconceptions.

In theory, Wikipedia and zero-sum game are terms which simply don't work together. However, in daily practice, when any wiki-combatant/contributor unilaterally determines that Wikipedia is a zero-sum game, then -- as Coldmachine articulates the point below -- "Tenmei seems unable to engage with the process of consensus building in a fashion which would yield an effective outcome."

Attack, escalation, and re-focusing any and all substantive issues as "behaviour" are proven strategies which moot less important questions or discussions based on core policies. In other words, in Wikipedia as a zero-sum game suggests something like the following:

loser = WP:Silence = qui tacet consentire videtur

The challenge for ArbCom is to affect this paradigm. Rather than suggesting draft text, this proposed outside the box remedy calls for an action.

Restatement of over-view principle. ArbCom's written decision in this case needs to be drafted so that others contributors in future disputes will be able to discern implied guidance and an arguably useful decision-making template which is composed of a few causally-related steps. Rather than suggesting draft text, this proposed outside the box remedy challenges ArbCom to divine what the participants cannot see for themselves.

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 participants 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. --Tenmei (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Comment by Caspian blue:
Tenmei, remind of WP:TLDR, WP:POINT, WP:SOAP.--Caspian blue 17:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trajectory of John Vandenberg's constructive suggestion which missed the mark -- a lesson not unheeded by Tenmei?
Comment by Tenmei: ArbCom should endorse something like the conciliatory analysis Taemyr suggests. Taemyr's comment demonstrates a fundamental understanding of what is necessary for the academic integrity of Wikipedia's articles and collaborative work.
  • A source can not be deemed reliable or not independent of the facts it is used to source -- diff
Taemyr also observes that "it goes both ways" --diff, suggesting Tenmei should have cited specific facts which were disputed.
Without putting to fine a point on it, Taemyr fails to take into account that Teeninvestor was and continues to be deeply engaged in a zero-sum game in which "it goes both ways" becomes a meaningless concept. See graphic at right.
When Wikipedia becomes a battlefield, simply posting {{shortcut| WP:Battle }} changes nothing about the essential nature of an on-going zero-sum competition. It is noteworthy that the prospect of closer scrutiny in this ArbCom workshop affected the combative strategies and tactics of Teeninvestor and Caspian blue much less than one might have hoped.
In the development of this ArbCom case, Teeninvestor's calculated strategic question-in-response-to-a-question (the tactical offer of a new question in lieu of any answer to any question) was effective, but not helpful:
  • Despite Teeninvestor's questions, Tenmei discerned no alternative other than to abandon trying to
    • explain verified, unverified, verifiable, unverifiable, etc. -- not because of an unwillingness or inability to try to say the same thing again in different words, but because of an informed belief that any and all responses will be rejected as non-answers.
    • explain what more needs to be done in order comply with WP:V -- not because of an unwillingness or inability to try to say the same thing again in different words, but because of experiences which argued that the question and the questioner are equally disingenuous.
    • explain WP:BURDEN -- not because of an unwillingness or inability to try to say the same thing again in different words, but because it only devolves into a wearying Sysiphean exercise.
Moreover, based on past experience, attempts to try to work cooperatively are likely to be construed as something akin to capitulation or "spun" in some way that furthers Teeninvestor's battle plans, .e.g.,
For redundant emphasis, Teeninvestor argued, "YOU MUST SHOW A SOURCE THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE INFORMATION IN THIS ARTICLE IS INCORRECT BEFORE YOU CAN CHALLENGE IT .... THE ONUS IS ON YOU MY FRIEND" -- diff.
An illustration of a failed effort to work towards a common objective is the following:
As a practical matter, this ArbCom case illustrates persistent problems in a minor article and in a limited-scope dispute. The challenge for ArbCom is to affect persistent paradigms while also attending to small disputes between members of the Wikipedia community. --Tenmei (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tenmei's ad nauseam "tactic" leads WP:TLDR. Q.E.D.--Caspian blue 20:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man fallacy

The "nine dots" puzzle.
One of many solutions to the puzzle.

5) The outside the box resolution I want acknowledges that, in theory, a skewed view of Wikipedia and "straw man" informal fallacies simply don't work together. However, in daily practice, when any wiki-combatant/contributor unilaterally determines that a "straw man" gambit might be worthwhile, it marginalizes others' ability to engage the process of consensus building in a fashion which would yield an effective outcome."

In theory, using a straw man to affect the outcome of a straw poll in lieu of consensus-building is disfavored. When this occurs, it fundamentally misconstrues the core goals and policies of Wikipedia; but a conflation of these concepts happens on a regular basis. This ArbCom dispute illustrates just such a situation.

The challenge for ArbCom is to affect this paradigm. Rather than suggesting draft text, this proposed outside the box remedy calls for an action.

Restatement of over-view principle. ArbCom's written decision in this case needs to be drafted so that others contributors in future disputes will be able to discern implied guidance and an arguably useful decision-making template which is composed of a few causally-related steps. Rather than suggesting draft text, this proposed outside the box remedy challenges ArbCom to divine what the participants cannot see for themselves.

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 participants 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. --Tenmei (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by Tenmei: Re-framing any and all substantive issues as "straw men" are proven strategies, e.g.,
  • 1st question for Tenmei: Do you understand WP:V?: "... what are the requirements you think a source with WP:V has that this source doesn't? ... However, 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 ... completely destroying Tenmei's argument of my violation of WP:V and showing that he is a policy violater."
  • 4th question for Tenmei: How come you didn't comply with your own definition of WP:V?: "Based on your definition of WP:V, any source which others do not have the opportunity to examine are faulty and does not comply with WP:V ..... Therefore, you have violated your own definition of WP:V (which was faulty in the first place)...?"
As a practical matter, this ArbCom case illustrates persistent problems in a minor article and in a limited-scope dispute. The challenge for ArbCom is to affect persistent paradigms while also attending to small disputes between members of the Wikipedia community. --Tenmei (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Alchemy

The "nine dots" puzzle.
One of many solutions to the puzzle.

6) The outside the box resolution I want acknowledges that, in theory, the skewed view of Wikipedia policies as weapons is counter-intuitive. In other circumstances, WP:NPA, WP:Civ, etc. have been used as tools which effectively deflect attention away from necessary dialogue concerning relevant content and policy issues. When this has occured elsewhere, it has fundamentally unbalances the core objectives of Wikipedia; but, the fact-of-the-matter is that a conflation of these concepts happens on a regular basis. This ArbCom dispute illustrates one such skewed situation.

There is something wrong with the alchemy which converts disputes or discussions about wiki-policy matters into allegations of bad conduct. There's something doubly wrong when this alchemy leaves the policy issues unaddressed, overlooked, brushed aside, forgotten.

In this ArbCom case, the increasing stridency and vitriol of allegations having to do with "Tenmei's behaviour" are almost overwhelming anything to do with the narrow issues presented at the RfA stage of this dispute.

The challenge for ArbCom is to affect this paradigm. Rather than suggesting draft text, this proposed outside the box remedy calls for an action.

Restatement of over-view principle. ArbCom's written decision in this case needs to be drafted so that others contributors in future disputes will be able to discern implied guidance and an arguably useful decision-making template which is composed of a few causally-related steps. Rather than suggesting draft text, this proposed outside the box remedy challenges ArbCom to divine what the participants cannot see for themselves.

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 participants 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. --Tenmei (talk) 19:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by Tenmei: Re-framing any and all substantive issues as "behavioural" problems are proven strategies, e.g., Teeninvestor identifies the locus of dispute as "a correct interpetation of WP:V to be Verifiability in principle" ... which, it is proposed, will tangentially require ArbCom to discourage future temerity with the following conduct sanctions:
As a practical matter, this ArbCom case illustrates persistent problems in a minor article and in a limited-scope dispute. The challenge for ArbCom is to affect persistent paradigms while also attending to small disputes between members of the Wikipedia community. --Tenmei (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Comment by Caspian blue:
ArbCom doe not take "content disputes" in general, but "behavioral concerns" erupted in the content disputes. Tenmei does not understand the goal of this arbitration.--Caspian blue 17:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Proposals by User:Teeninvestor

Proposed principles

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.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, before I started editing Inner Asia during the Tang dynasty, Tenmei removed many sources because they were "unaccessible" in his words and deleted the content of the article. In addition, he tried to speedy delete the article. This is outright vandalism and should be rejected.

diff diff diff diff.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Shortcuts
Comment by Tenmei: Is this proposal just another way to devalue the substance of Tenmei words in circumstances which might call for nuance in addressing complex or difficult matters? Is the purpose of this proposal is to diminish the value of Tenmei future contributions a priori?
The fact-of-the-matter is that I did post a merge tag which was considered and rejected. This is not vandalism. More specifically, the punative elements in this proposal represent an unhelpful trend towards poisoning the well.
This isn't merely over-reaching; it subverts.
Oppose:
This proposal needs to be rejected entirely. It is not enough for ArbCom to decline to endorse this point-of-view; rather, it needs to be rebutted firmly and clearly. --Tenmei (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations having to do with "Tenmei's behaviour". Teeninvestor seeks to expand the scope of this case. Presenting this kind of motion effectively acknowledges that issues may be construed narrowly; therefore, I'm minimizing my comments on this specific proposal pending a clarification of that motion -- see also diff. --Tenmei (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Comment by Patar knight:The two articles had nothing to do with each other, and was a bad decision. The rationale is also unclear and does not provide a sound justification of why two articles should be merged: (here: [43] and here: [44]) --Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"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

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.

From this quote above we can see that Teeninvestor has complied with the requirements of WP:V.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]
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:
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]
Oppose:
This proposal needs to be rejected entirely. It is not enough for ArbCom to decline to endorse this point-of-view; rather, it needs to be rebutted firmly and clearly. --Tenmei (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trajectory of John Vandenberg's constructive suggestion which missed the mark -- a lesson not unheeded by Tenmei?
On the other hand, I endorse the conciliatory points Taemyr makes succinctly; and ArbCom should also endorse this view. Taemyr's comment demonstrates a fundamental understanding of what is necessary for the academic integrity of Wikipedia's articles and collaborative work. --Tenmei (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Taemyr: Without putting too fine a point on it, Taemyr fails to take into account that Teeninvestor was and continues to be deeply engaged in a zero-sum game in which "it goes both ways" becomes a meaningless concept. See graphic at right.
Teeninvestor's calculated strategic question-in-response-to-a-question (the tactical offer of a new question in lieu of any answer to any question) was effective, but not helpful. Moreover, based on past experience, attempts to try to work cooperatively are likely to be construed as something akin to capitulation or "spun" in some way that furthers Teeninvestor's battle plans, .e.g.,
For redundant emphasis, Teeninvestor argued, "YOU MUST SHOW A SOURCE THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE INFORMATION IN THIS ARTICLE IS INCORRECT BEFORE YOU CAN CHALLENGE IT .... THE ONUS IS ON YOU MY FRIEND" -- diff.
An illustration of a failed effort to work towards a common objective is the following:
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]
Tenmei, it goes both ways. It's very hard looking at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty and find what cited facts you are objecting too. Taemyr (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Patar knight: Teeninvestor does possess a copy of the book, so the relevant pages can be scanned and looked over by trusted editors to settle the 5000 years reliabilty issue. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't to any, even with requests to him to do so.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 complete 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.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Shortcuts
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]
Oppose:
This proposal needs to be rejected entirely. It is not enough for ArbCom to decline to endorse this point-of-view; rather, it needs to be rebutted firmly and clearly.
One sentence in this proposal is something the parties can agree to accept:
"Wikipedia sourcing policies are to be applied consistently across sources of every language."
I don't see how agreement on this one sentence could be leveraged into the beginnings of a process towards resolution or avoiding conflicts like this altogether; but it is wise to emphasize anything about which there can be agreement in this venue. --Tenmei (talk) 21:02, 8 May 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:

Locus of dispute

The locus of dispute is the struggle between a correct interpetation of WP:V to be Verifiability in principle, rather than Tenmei's argument that all sources who are "unaccessible" to him must be removed. diffTeeninvestor (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by parties:
Shortcuts
Comment by Tenmei: Is this proposal just another way to devalue the substance of Tenmei words in circumstances which might call for nuance in addressing complex or difficult matters? Is the purpose of this proposal is to diminish the value of Tenmei future contributions a priori?
This isn't merely over-reaching; it subverts.
Oppose:
This proposal needs to be rejected entirely. It is not enough for ArbCom to decline to endorse this point-of-view; rather, it needs to be rebutted firmly and clearly. --Tenmei (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations having to do with "Tenmei's behaviour". Teeninvestor seeks to expand the scope of this case. Presenting this kind of motion effectively acknowledges that issues may be construed narrowly; therefore, I'm minimizing my comments on this specific proposal pending a clarification of that motion -- see also diff. --Tenmei (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by arbitrators:


Comments by others

User:Tenmei doesn't understand WP:V

From repeated questions, Tenmei seems to not understand that WP:V is Verifiability in principle, not for very reader. He justified removing mine- and others' sources based on the fact they are "inaccessible" to him, despite them being sourced. This is highly disruptive and must be prohibited strongly. diff. diff where he argues that a source is not verifiable if he can't examine it.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by parties:
Shortcuts
Comment by Tenmei: Is this proposal just another way to devalue the substance of Tenmei words in circumstances which might call for nuance in addressing complex or difficult matters? Is the purpose of this proposal is to diminish the value of Tenmei future contributions a priori?
This isn't merely over-reaching; it subverts.
Oppose:
This proposal needs to be rejected entirely. It is not enough for ArbCom to decline to endorse this point-of-view; rather, it needs to be rebutted firmly and clearly. --Tenmei (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC
Allegations having to do with "Tenmei's behaviour". Teeninvestor seeks to expand the scope of this case. Presenting this kind of motion effectively acknowledges that issues may be construed narrowly; therefore, I'm minimizing my comments on this specific proposal pending a clarification of that motion -- see also diff. --Tenmei (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by arbitrators:


Comments by others

User:Tenmei doesn't assume WP:AGF

As shown by the diff below, Tenmei does not assume WP:AGF and subsequently cannot work with other editors. In the diff, he accused other editors of being a part of "PRC-sponsered attacks". He also accuses me of sockpuppetry and declears I am the anon editor. diffTeeninvestor (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by parties:
Shortcuts
Comment by Tenmei: Is this proposal just another way to devalue the substance of Tenmei words in circumstances which might call for nuance in addressing complex or difficult matters? Is the purpose of this proposal is to diminish the value of Tenmei future contributions a priori?
This isn't merely over-reaching; it subverts.
Oppose:
This proposal needs to be rejected entirely. It is not enough for ArbCom to decline to endorse this point-of-view; rather, it needs to be rebutted firmly and clearly. --Tenmei (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC
Allegations having to do with "Tenmei's behaviour". Teeninvestor seeks to expand the scope of this case. Presenting this kind of motion effectively acknowledges that issues may be construed narrowly; therefore, I'm minimizing my comments on this specific proposal pending a clarification of that motion -- see also diff. --Tenmei (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by arbitrators:
Comments by others

Proposed remedies

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

User:Tenmei should be reminded that WP:TLDR is disruptive

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. If needed, we may need an admin to patrol him, so to speak(which fits in with my mentorship arrangement).

He just showed below how he can't make himself clear.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Shortcut
Comment by Tenmei: This specific proposed remedy based on a hortatory essay 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. There are certain activities which cannot be achieved singly -- like communicating and like editing Wikipedia. Teeninvestor's proposal presumes it is irrelevant to parse a collaborative activity.
The problem becomes one of identifying who was unable or unwilling to work together; and an investigating how something was written remains secondary to what was written -- and why.
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. Ironically, Teeninvestor seems to be complaining that I tried too hard in so many words. If so, the question still remains about what Teeninvestor did or did not do to mitigate what he now identifies as a problem.
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 ....
Oppose:
This proposal needs to be rejected entirely. It is not enough for ArbCom to decline to endorse this point-of-view; rather, it needs to be rebutted firmly and clearly. That is not to say that Tenmei doesn't need to figure out how to write more succinctly; but if the purpose of this proposal is to diminish the value of Tenmei contribution a priori, then the proposal must be rejected, if only because of the unanticipated consequences which are likely to ensue.
This isn't merely over-reaching; it subverts.
For redundant clarity, no one opposes the notion of any editor learning to contribute and participate in a more constructive fashion; but the functional utility of this proposal is not really aimed towards achieving that objective. --Tenmei (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations having to do with "Tenmei's behaviour". Teeninvestor seeks to expand the scope of this case. Presenting this kind of motion effectively acknowledges that issues may be construed narrowly; therefore, I'm minimizing my comments on this specific proposal pending a clarification of that motion -- see also diff. --Tenmei (talk) 19:23, 13 May 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.
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]
Response to Nick-D: Adressing Nick-D's observations seriatim:
  • Excerpt A. "Tenmei's posts on this page are an excellent example of his writing style ...."
Yes, my writing is getting better, clearer, more pointed. In the course of investigating the issues and "evidence" in this ArbCom case, I was understandably compelled to re-visit the WP:AN/I thread you initiated. I also re-examined the WP:AN/I thread which was started by Caspian blue. I am gratified to see ways in which my composition skills have sharpened. Even so, yes, I do recognize that my persuasive writing needs improvement. Does your comment here mean, applying a rhetorical reductio ad absurdem device, that you support chastisement for any and all who don't write well enough?
  • Excerpt B. "... example of his writing style in the disputes he gets into ..."
Yes, the disputes I cannot avert are ones in which fundamental issues are central. I respond to challenges which I construe as affecting what I've contributed in the past or what I am planning to edit in the future. Yes, but reductio ad absurdem, are you implying that there is something deserving of reprimand in the fact that the topics which matter enough to me are also core policies?
  • Excerpt C. "... it is impossible to follow these over-long posts ...."
Yes, my posts are sometimes longer than average; but when you use the word "impossible," what are you really complaining about? Is it that you are unwilling or unable to follow? If you are unable, then the nature, form and quantity of the inquiries which you proffer in the service of collaborative editing becomes important. A burden-shifting pivot point should be identifiable; and without your active involvement in the process of communication, the impossibility you identify becomes something of a self-fulfilling prophesy.
  • Excerpt D. "... and they rarely come to a clear point."
Yes, I don't put too fine a point into anything I write. This is a consequence of lessons learned the hard way from those who too easily feign to be shocked and offended, e.g., diff.
  • Excerpt E. "This makes dispute resolution with this editor very difficult ...."
Yes, dispute resolution is difficult, but reductio ad absurdem, are you arguing that the problems are difficult or that I am difficult?
  • Excerpt F. "... and he appears to use this writing style to shut down discussions."
No, there is no credible evidence to support this. Innuendo is a frail reed.
  • Excerpt G. "He has been warned for this behavior multiple times."
No, again. This implied recidivism requires more if it is to be received as meaningful.
With all due respect, no. This rebuttal illustrates the problem I face in any Wikipedia dispute. You said quite a bit and implied quite a bit more in only a few lines, but it took a great many more words to respond, analyze and rebuff the implications and connotations your prose encompassed. --Tenmei (talk) 18:50, 13 May 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[45][46] and then deleted[47][48] 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[49] 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]
I agree with this proposal. Tenmei's posts on this page are an excellent example of his writing style in the disputes he gets into - it is impossible to follow these over-long posts and they rarely come to a clear point. This makes dispute resolution with this editor very difficult and he appears to use this writing style to shut down discussions. He has been warned for this behavior multiple times. Nick-D (talk) 02:16, 10 May 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 Teeninvestor (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Shortcuts
Comment by Tenmei: I think the only reason WP:CIVIL is raised here has nothing to do with Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. I wonder if this proposal evolves out of an effort to create something out of nothing using patterns Nick-D and Caspian blue attempted to pursue. Civility makes an awkward weapon in this venue or any venue. Teeninvestor over-reaches in ways that are unhelpful.
This isn't merely over-reaching; it subverts.
Oppose:
This proposal needs to be rejected entirely. It is not enough for ArbCom to decline to endorse this point-of-view; rather, it needs to be rebutted firmly and clearly. --Tenmei (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations having to do with "Tenmei's behaviour". Teeninvestor seeks to expand the scope of this case. Presenting this kind of motion effectively acknowledges that issues may be construed narrowly; therefore, I'm minimizing my comments on this specific proposal pending a clarification of that motion -- see also diff. --Tenmei (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Shortcuts
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:
This isn't merely over-reaching; it subverts.
Oppose:
This proposal needs to be rejected entirely. It is not enough for ArbCom to decline to endorse this point-of-view; rather, it needs to be rebutted firmly and clearly.--Tenmei (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations having to do with "Tenmei's behaviour". Teeninvestor seeks to expand the scope of this case. Presenting this kind of motion effectively acknowledges that issues may be construed narrowly; therefore, I'm minimizing my comments on this specific proposal pending a clarification of that motion -- see also diff. --Tenmei (talk) 19:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

User:Tenmei is reminded that WP:CONSENSUS is necessary

User:Tenmei repeated violated WP:CONSENSUS by not engaging in discussion with other editors before making changes, and going against consensus when it does not fit his view(through abusing the dispute resolution system, see below). Tenmei even refused to answer other editors' question diff. User:Tenmei is strongly warned not to take actions without WP:CONSENSUS.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Shortcuts
Comment by Tenmei: 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 -- assuming that complex issues can be addressed quickly, simply, succinctly. Sometimes, yes, that is possible. Sometimes, no.
More crucially, this proposal presumes that it is irrelevant to investigate whether Teeninvestor was unwilling or unable to work collaboratively. The unstated premise establishes a foundation for a fallacy -- if not for Tenmei's "behaviour," there would have been no problem.
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 collaborative editing. A process of consensus-building has more than one partner. Any investigation into what might have gone wrong requires an examination of the contributions of each partner, not just one of them.
"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. Ironically, it happens that Teeninvestor's record alone is sufficent to disprove the legitimacy of allegations about any consensus-building failures.
"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:
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:
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.
I would want to be a better writer, but this is the best I can do for now. Is censure the reward I've earned for simply trying to participate in the best was I can manage. No.
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 ....
The intent of those who drafted WP:Consensus was far removed from any notion that a weapon was being crated. "Consensus" as a term makes an awkward weapon in this venue or any venue. Teeninvestor over-reaches in ways that are unhelpful.
This isn't merely over-reaching; it subverts.
Oppose:
This proposal needs to be rejected entirely. It is not enough for ArbCom to decline to endorse this point-of-view; rather, it needs to be rebutted firmly and clearly. --Tenmei (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations having to do with "Tenmei's behaviour". Teeninvestor seeks to expand the scope of this case. Presenting this kind of motion effectively acknowledges that issues may be construed narrowly; therefore, I'm minimizing my comments on this specific proposal pending a clarification of that motion -- see also diff. --Tenmei (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

User:Tenmei reminded of WP:AGF

User:Tenmei's inability to assume good faith of editors such as Teeninvestor, Caspian Blue, and even uninvolved editor Patar Knight is highly disruptive and violative of wikipedia's policies, and he is reminded to assume WP:AGF.diffTeeninvestor (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Shortcuts
Comment by Tenmei: Is this proposal just another way to devalue the substance of Tenmei words in circumstances which might call for nuance in addressing complex or difficult matters? Is the purpose of this proposal is to diminish the value of Tenmei future contributions a priori?
This isn't merely over-reaching; it subverts.
Oppose:
This proposal needs to be rejected entirely. It is not enough for ArbCom to decline to endorse this point-of-view; rather, it needs to be rebutted firmly and clearly. --Tenmei (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations having to do with "Tenmei's behaviour". Teeninvestor seeks to expand the scope of this case. Presenting this kind of motion effectively acknowledges that issues may be construed narrowly; therefore, I'm minimizing my comments on this specific proposal pending a clarification of that motion -- see also diff. --Tenmei (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

User:Tenmei reminded of WP:NPA

User:Tenmei's attacks on editors such as Teeninvestor(who he called ilk)diff, Caspian Blue, anons(who he called "toxic warriors")diff [and Patar Knight(who he called meritless)diff is thereby strongly prohibited and User:Tenmei is therefore reminded of WP:NPA. Tenmei's use of words such as "gambit", "inneundo", "abusive" and "toxic" is thereby strongly prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Shortcuts
Comment by Tenmei: Is this proposal just another way to devalue the substance of Tenmei words in circumstances which might call for nuance in addressing complex or difficult matters? Is the purpose of this proposal is to diminish the value of Tenmei future contributions a priori?
This isn't merely over-reaching; it subverts.
Oppose:
This proposal needs to be rejected entirely. It is not enough for ArbCom to decline to endorse this point-of-view; rather, it needs to be rebutted firmly and clearly. --Tenmei (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations having to do with "Tenmei's behaviour". Teeninvestor seeks to expand the scope of this case. Presenting this kind of motion effectively acknowledges that issues may be construed narrowly; therefore, I'm minimizing my comments on this specific proposal pending a clarification of that motion -- see also diff. --Tenmei (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

User:Tenmei reminded of WP:BATTLE

User:Tenmei is warned that Wikipedia is not a battleground, and should not be treated as such. User:Tenmei's using wikipedia as a battleground against other editors such as Caspian Blue is therefore prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Shortcuts
Comment by Tenmei: Is this proposal just another way to devalue the substance of Tenmei words in circumstances which might call for nuance in addressing complex or difficult matters? Is the purpose of this proposal is to diminish the value of Tenmei future contributions a priori?
This isn't merely over-reaching; it subverts.
Oppose:
This proposal needs to be rejected entirely. It is not enough for ArbCom to decline to endorse this point-of-view; rather, it needs to be rebutted firmly and clearly. --Tenmei (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations having to do with "Tenmei's behaviour". Teeninvestor seeks to expand the scope of this case. Presenting this kind of motion effectively acknowledges that issues may be construed narrowly; therefore, I'm minimizing my comments on this specific proposal pending a clarification of that motion -- see also diff. --Tenmei (talk) 19:28, 13 May 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. Challenging a source and removing it simply because of "non-standard citation formats" and "inaccessible to me" is inadequate and should be strongly prohibited.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Shortcuts
Comment by Tenmei: Is this proposal just another way to devalue the substance of Tenmei words in circumstances which might call for nuance in addressing complex or difficult matters? Is the purpose of this proposal is to diminish the value of Tenmei future contributions a priori?
This isn't merely over-reaching; it subverts.
Oppose:
This proposal needs to be rejected entirely. It is not enough for ArbCom to decline to endorse this point-of-view; rather, it needs to be rebutted firmly and clearly. --Tenmei (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations having to do with "Tenmei's behaviour". Teeninvestor seeks to expand the scope of this case. Presenting this kind of motion effectively acknowledges that issues may be construed narrowly; therefore, I'm minimizing my comments on this specific proposal pending a clarification of that motion -- see also diff. --Tenmei (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Teeninvestor: I reject the reductio ad absurdem argument. WP:V, WP:Burden, WP:RSUE and [[WP:RS] are complementary. Wikipedia policy is resistant to reducio ad absurdem ploys. --Tenmei (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

So you think an editor who challenges a source shouldn't be informed about the topic? lol.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tenmei to be banned for 1 year

Given Tenmei's disruptive behaviors, both in this article and the previous Hyuga dispute, I recommend that Tenmei be given a strong punishment just like the below ArbCom case initiator diff. If Tenmei is not punished and allowed to continue to do so, he will cause much damage to our encyclopedia. He needs a strict punishment to ring a bell, sot o speak. Therefore, I propose that he is to banned from editing wikipedia for 1 year. Teeninvestor (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Shortcuts
Comment by Tenmei: Is this proposal just another way to devalue the substance of Tenmei words in circumstances which might call for nuance in addressing complex or difficult matters? Is the purpose of this proposal is to diminish the value of Tenmei future contributions a priori?
This isn't merely over-reaching; it subverts.
Oppose:
This proposal needs to be rejected entirely. It is not enough for ArbCom to decline to endorse this point-of-view; rather, it needs to be rebutted firmly and clearly. --Tenmei (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations having to do with "Tenmei's behaviour". Teeninvestor seeks to expand the scope of this case. Presenting this kind of motion effectively acknowledges that issues may be construed narrowly; therefore, I'm minimizing my comments on this specific proposal pending a clarification of that motion -- see also diff. --Tenmei (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Teeninvestor

As you can see from this and other proposals, Tenmei does not work with other editors. He simply comments on them using the exact same comment posted over and over again, without explaining his reasons. More reason to support the proposal above.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

User:Tenmei is to be placed under Mentorship with strong restrictions

After Tenmei emerges from his ban, I propose that Tenmei (should he continue to edit wikipedia) be placed under mentorship by a trusted admin so his disruptive behavior should be curtailed. Strong restrictions are needed as previous informal mentorship arrangements have failed: Teeninvestor (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Shortcut
Comment by Tenmei: Is this proposal just another way to devalue the substance of Tenmei words in circumstances which might call for nuance in addressing complex or difficult matters? Is the purpose of this proposal is to diminish the value of Tenmei future contributions a priori?
This isn't merely over-reaching; it subverts.
Oppose:
This proposal needs to be rejected entirely. It is not enough for ArbCom to decline to endorse this point-of-view; rather, it needs to be rebutted firmly and clearly. --Tenmei (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations having to do with "Tenmei's behaviour". Teeninvestor seeks to expand the scope of this case. Presenting this kind of motion effectively acknowledges that issues may be construed narrowly; therefore, I'm minimizing my comments on this specific proposal pending a clarification of that motion -- see also diff. --Tenmei (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

User:Tenmei to be subject to Chinese history topic ban

Tenmei is hereby prohibited to edit Chinese history-related articles, with a broad definition. Tenmei has a very biased view towards China, declearing several anon editors to be part of a "PRC-sponsered shill diff , despite the fact they claimed to be Pro ROC and subtly accusing me of sockpuppetry by suggesting that I was the anon. He has shown himself to have a biased point of view, such that he cannot contribute to such articles constructively. Tenmei is allowed to post suggestions, but comments violative of WP:TLDR should and will be removed.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by Tenmei: Is this proposal just another way to devalue the substance of Tenmei words in circumstances which might call for nuance in addressing complex or difficult matters? Is the purpose of this proposal is to diminish the value of Tenmei future contributions a priori?
This isn't merely over-reaching; it subverts.
Oppose:
This proposal needs to be rejected entirely. It is not enough for ArbCom to decline to endorse this point-of-view; rather, it needs to be rebutted firmly and clearly. --Tenmei (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations having to do with "Tenmei's behaviour". Teeninvestor seeks to expand the scope of this case. Presenting this kind of motion effectively acknowledges that issues may be construed narrowly; therefore, I'm minimizing my comments on this specific proposal pending a clarification of that motion -- see also diff. --Tenmei (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Teeninvestor: The alleged "misconduct" in suggesting that a disruptive interloper might be a "PRC-sponsored shill is tiresome and over-reaching. This is more fully parsed ad nauseam at "Analysis of evidence by Patar knight" below. The newly added detail suggests a transparent attempt to gin up a sense of offense out of nothing; however, Teeninvestor's newest example of a cause for complaint does serve an arguably useful purpose.
The most important word in the phrase is the noun -- "shill" -- here. In its first use, this noun is proposed as a hypothesis informed by the series of provocative comments and maps which had been posted by a single anonymous "entity" using a variety of seemingly unrelated IP-addresses. The plausibility and reasonableness of this conjecture was in fact confirmed subsequently when the shill explained that he/she was not pro-PRC, but rather pro-ROC here. In clarifying, the "entity" confirmed that the term "shill" was not inaccurate, that I had actually managed to call a spade a spade -- see also WP:DUCK. However, Teeninvestor argues now -- some weeks later -- that the crucial focus of attention needs to be shifted away from accuracy of that hypothesized noun. Instead, we all need to focus closely on the strained sense of offense which was or could have been engendered by even the mention of something to do with the People's Republic of China ...?
No. There are plenty of real problems which might be ameliorated by a little attention. This is not one of them. --Tenmei (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

A trusted admin to enforce Tenmei topic ban

- 1) Should my advice be heeded by ArbCom, a trusted admin should be chosen to enforce Tenmei's topic ban, preferably one who is neutral in the matter.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by Tenmei: Is this proposal just another way to devalue the substance of Tenmei words in circumstances which might call for nuance in addressing complex or difficult matters? Is the purpose of this proposal is to diminish the value of Tenmei future contributions a priori?
This isn't merely over-reaching; it subverts.
Oppose:
This proposal needs to be rejected entirely. It is not enough for ArbCom to decline to endorse this point-of-view; rather, it needs to be rebutted firmly and clearly. --Tenmei (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations having to do with "Tenmei's behaviour". Teeninvestor seeks to expand the scope of this case. Presenting this kind of motion effectively acknowledges that issues may be construed narrowly; therefore, I'm minimizing my comments on this specific proposal pending a clarification of that motion -- see also diff. --Tenmei (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
I don't agree; As I've had a run-in with this editor which I've described on the evidence page and am on the list of people 'who did not' try to help which he maintains at User:Tenmei (something which seems dangerously close to an enemies list) I'm not neutral, and I don't think that Tenmei would perceive me as neutral based on his response to my evidence. Nick-D (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just struck out the above comment as I made it when it was first proposed that I enforce the topic ban. I'm a bit disappointed that this proposal was removed (along with my post - see [50]) and then replaced with a new proposal with my comment restored but left unchanged ([51]) - this seems to be bad form. I have no views on the new proposal. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:
Comment 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]
Allegations having to do with "Tenmei's behaviour". Thus far, I have not invested much time in responding to the Gordian Knot of allegations which Teeninvestor bundles together under the rubric "Tenmei's behaviour."
I do note that Teeninvestor is asking ArbCom to expand the scope of this case to focus more closely on me. In a sense, the fact that a motion for expansion has been presented becomes a kind of recognition that the scope of this case can be construed more narrowly than Teeninvestor would like to do.
Therefore, I am taking a hint from Teeninvestor. I haved tried to limit my responses to serial allegations too numerous to count. There will be time enough to deal with all that in due course ... or perhaps there won't be any need to go into any of it? --Tenmei (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Evidence presented by Tenmei

The pattern evidenced in March 14 diffs at Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty is mirrored in the development of this ArbCom case.

In the diffs above and in the evidence adduced, Tenmei's measured language and attending to policy-specific, process-specific and fact-specific issues compare favorably with immoderate words, "straw man" issues, escalating accusations and the ever-widening focus which are alternately presented, despite the asertions of this inconsistent diff. --Tenmei (talk) 02:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In presenting evidence, the following was assumed:
  • 1. The issues in this ArbCom case should be reasonably limited to those which can be arguably shown to have been contemplated within the statements which informed WP:RfA voting.
  • 2. The potential benefits are not likely to outweigh the plausible costs of expanding the scope of this ArbCom case beyond what was encompassed within the initial statements of the parties and other participants at that early stage.
A corollary issue becomes whether Tenmei is or was unwilling as well as unable to engage in collaborative work.
This important distinction is amply illustrated in the participation of the parties in this ArbCom workshop venue, e.g.,
  • Although Tenmei is demonstrably willing to try to explain, clarify, and engage Teeninvestor's issues, the question becomes whether Tenmei is merely prudent in declining to rise to the bait.
  • Although Teeninvestor is demonstrably eager to encourage an expansive investigation of "Tenmei's behaviour" outside the ambit of Mongolia during Tang rule, it remains unclear how Teeninvestor's strategy clarifies whether Tenmei is failing (unable) or refusing (unwilling) to collaborate in working
(a) to enhance of Wikipedia's academic integrity, credibility, and quality in the contexts of Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty or this ArbCom case; and/or
(b) to resolve what are identified in this ArbCom case as Issues #1, #2, #3 and #4?
ArbCom guidance is needed in order to evaluate whether or not all the relevant issues have been adequately engaged by the parties. This aspect of the ArbCom process is not simple. --Tenmei (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Tenmei has not presented evidence worthy of the name. Rather, he has presented a TLDR document on his view of wikipedia- which is not what ArbCom required. Specifically, ArbCom required him to demonstrate his view that I have violated wikipedia policy by adding material from a source which I cited with full bibliographic information, is confirmed by several editors to be accurate (diff), and which has had a link with information. He has not done this. Rather, he has presented a babble of words, mostly insulting me and other editors and ranting about how the source is "inaccessible"(the best I could make of his WP:TLDR comments). Such behaviour should not be tolerated, and should demonstrate to ArbCom the real gravity of the situation.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
So Tenmei analyzes and concludes his own evidence by himself instead of responding? I'm still having a very hard time figuring out what he is trying to do with diagrams and rants.--Caspian blue 19:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Yaan

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by Tenmei: I adopt Yaan's sensible views as my own. No comment has been offered to rebut or dispute Yaan's straightforward, succinct contribution. There are practical reasons why ArbCom should endorse Yaan's rejection of novel "principles."
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 above in the Response section at 4th question for Tenmei: How come you didn't comply with your own definition of WP:V?.
Expressed in different words, ArbCom's endorsement of Yaan's reasoning implies a rejection of Teeninvestor's proposed principles and positions, which have now been more fully developed outside the context of Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. Although the process was time-consuming, the exchange of views developed in this workshop venue did facilitate an expanded analysis of the principles which Yaan rightly rejects.
ArbCom's decision-making processes in this minor case may serve to mitigate an unforeseen number of future disputes. It is also possible that potential disputes which may be averted because of the time and thoughtful attention invested here. --Tenmei (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yo, Yaan's name is spelled Yaan, not Yann. That's a different user.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Tenmei, (you added 15,808 kbyte just for this section!) are you writing a thesis on "new Wiki model" or autobiography? Your above text-blocks are as always too excruciatingly long for readers to read/understand what you mean. Too much irrelevant materials are presented. Be succinct please.--Caspian blue 19:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Nick-D

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment 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]
Nick-D's AN/I complaint: In the limited context of this ArbCom case, Nick-D's "evidence" resists easy characterization. It perhaps goes too far to call it something akin to sour grapes, but the essential thrust reveals an abiding dissatisfaction with the outcome of a 2008 dispute resolution process. Clearly, Nick-D continues to be vexed by the addition of one sentence at Hyūga class helicopter destroyer; and I wonder if it may be helpful in this venue to propose mediation yet again, this time suggesting perhaps Roger Davis as a mediator acceptable to Nick-D.
Teeninvestor's explicit purpose in searching for Nick-D had little or nothing to do with "evidence" or facts or factoids, regardless of the way such terms are defined in this ArbCom setting. The unsubtle purpose in soliciting Nick-D's participation was concerned only with adding another "damning statement" in the ArbCom case. Teeninvestor's goal was to add to the number of "people have testified against Tenmei, showing how much damage he has done." In such heedless wiki-games, I reject Nick-D's adverse "testimony" as irrelevant.
Yes, Nick-D initiated a complaint at WP:AN/I in 2008. But NO, that unilateral decision by one person does not convert me into some sort of wiki-felon. At this distance from events, no one can say how responsibility deserves to be allocated for whatever went wrong. What can be said with resounding clarity is that the dispute resolution "consensus" did not decide that my "personal abuse and disruptive behaviour" earned the heinous burden of unremitting opprobrium. NO.
Yes, this was one of those instances in which things didn't go well. But NO, I reject any implied claim that this is a terrible embarrassment which should be construed to diminish my full participation in this or any other setting. NO.
Without intending to reinvigorate latent resentments, I reject any and all insinuations which may be discerned in the substance or tone of Nick-D's comments. The fact-of-the-matter is that he took a forceful position a complaint-resolution thread, but nothing came of it. It is also a fact that there was a great deal that I did not understand then or now. Unlike Nick-D, I sought to use the dispute resolution process to move beyond what I found confusing. I feel no sense of dishonor in my words or actions, only regret that my best efforts were ineffective. I adamantly reject the utterly undignified way Caspian blue and Teeninvestor have each independently tried to piggyback unseemly and unproven allegations on the shoulders of Nick-D's undoubted industry and earned reputation. NO.
In the context Nick-D alone is responsible for creating, his dated grabbag of "evidence" persuades me to reject the amorphous allegation of "disruptive editing" in any article related to the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force fleet. In support of what might otherwise seem an overly-broad statement, it is minimally assertive to point out that no one has challenged the "see also" links to Constitution of Japan and Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution which were added to a single article about just one ship and one ship only in the JMSDF Fleet. Nick-D draws the wrong conclusions -- then and now -- from static words on his computer screen.
As for Teeninvestor, I reject the notion of feigned probity in a strategy and campaign of personal attack -- not because it's nominally prohibited by a wiki-policy -- but because it is both unseemly and demonstrably ineffective. --Tenmei (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment by Teeninvestor . Nick-D and I have no previous interaction. The reason I contacted him was to have an editor "back up" my statements about your previous disruption and provide details. this is relevant because the disruption showed previously may be usefully used to reflect on the current case.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Evidence presented by Coldmachine

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment 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]
The dispute at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer and Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty are like apples and oranges. The only commonalities are to be found in the amorphous term dispute and in the evident fact that I was an active participant in each dispute. In light of what I've identified as RfA Issue #1, I endorse two of Coldmachine's sentences and now adopt them as my own:
Coldmachine's sentences do not address a corollary issue -- whether Tenmei is or was unwilling as well as unable to engage in collaborative work.
This important distinction is amply illustrated in the participation of the parties in this ArbCom workshop venue, e.g.,
  • Although Tenmei is demonstrably willing to try to explain, clarify, and engage Teeninvestor's issues, the question becomes whether Tenmei is merely prudent in declining to rise to the bait.
  • Although Teeninvestor is demonstrably eager to encourage an expansive investigation of "Tenmei's behaviour" outside the ambit of Mongolia during Tang rule, it remains unclear how Teeninvestor's strategy clarifies whether Tenmei is failing (unable) or refusing (unwilling) to collaborate:
(a) to enhance of Wikipedia's academic integrity, credibility, and quality in the contexts of Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty or this ArbCom case; and/or
(b) to resolve what are identified in this ArbCom case as Issues #1, #2, #3 and #4?
Coldmachine's participation in this ArbCom case begs a question about how or when it becomes impossible for any one participant alone to affect the process of consensus building in a fashion which would yield an useful outcome. --Tenmei (talk) 16:36, 7 May 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 Tenmei: I would argue that Penwhale's evidence needs to be acknowledged using an outside the box analytical approach, which was initially suggested in my RfA statement at Response to Penwhale
"... Teeninvestor does not address the specific concerns I've raised -- as if what I've written were entirely meaningless, insubstantial, impenetrable. Instead, he/she poses an entirely different set of issues which constitute his/her "spin" on the gravamen of dispute .... [T]he offer to examine books in Chinese is unjustified for at least two reasons: (1) such an examination would do nothing to assist in addressing the issues I raise; and (2) the issues Teeninvestor proposes in the alternative are first to be construed in light of Wikipedia policies; ... [but this could be] constructive and welcome at some point in the future ...."
爱国主义 -- Several arbitrators joined Penwhale in construing a language barrier as a significant aspect of the problems this case presents. Whether the parties should have felt encouraged to do more is unclear from the following:
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (8/3/0/5):
  • Vassyana -- 5:49, 24 March, diff "... seek out the input of one or more uninvolved Chinese-speaking editors ...."
  • Newyorkbrad 3:48, 19 March, diff "... input from a Chinese-speaking administrator or experienced editor on the sourcing/verifiability and related issues might be helpful here ...."
  • Coren -- 0:40, 20 March, diff "... uninvolved Chinese-literate editor; it does appear that any case would revolve around the sources, and a good interpretation of them appears indispensable."
  • John Vandenberg -- 0:20, 26 March, diff:"Thank you Caspian blue. Based on what you have indicated, I think Wikisource can be of assistance here as a scratch pad to record the sources and translations. Wikisource has an Author page for Li Po on English Wikisource and Chinese Wikisource. I have set up three transcription projects on Wikisource at s:Author:Li Bai#Transcription projects, and I have created a bibliography page for s:Author:Bo Yang. There are no limitations on the amount of detail that can be recorded on Wikisource Author pages .... It would be helpful if the original Chinese sources are archived onto Chinese Wikisource if they are public domain, as all Li Bai works are, and any English translations identified. If the English translations are public domain, they should also be archived onto English Wikisource, or if no public domain translation is available, a collaborative translation can be created on English Wikisource.."
  • Fayssal -- 20:13, 23 March, diff: "... any Chinese-speaking editor who would help ...."
  • Cool Hand Luke -- 15:21, 27 March, diff: "... seems to be a linguistic question that we're ill-equipped to answer ...."
Subsequent development of this case seems not to have confirmed a hypothesis that an uninvolved Chinese-literate editor would help in resolving this ArbCom case. If Teeninvestor or others need more time to work on expanding the scope of the Chinese language record, I would offer no objections. However, the lack of further developments in this plausible aspect of this dispute may be taken to imply durable merit in the narrowly-drawn focus on Issues #1, #2, #3 and #4. --Tenmei (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Evidence presented by Caspian blue

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
The "nine dots" puzzle.
One of many solutions to the puzzle.
Comment by Tenmei: Caspian blue's initial comments were informed by an unconventional, outside the box perspective; however, what might have been taken as a hopeful sign doesn't survive closer scrutiny "outside the box" of this narrow ArbCom case -- see link, e.g., in the following diffs ...
Despite attempted mitigating intervention by Ed 17 and Juliancolton, my apology here and sharp words here, Caspian blue was irrepressible. The steam of argumentative diffs weren't stopped by Georgewilliamherbert's block; and dramatic tale continued to unfold -- see diff, etc. Like Rlevse here, I can only wonder, "Wow, all I can say is why and how did this train derail?"
Similar "outside the box" perspectives are necessary for evaluating the "evidence" presented by Caspian blue, e.g., "if he did not poke on me, I may have just commented to the Workshop regardless Teeninvestor's repeated requests" -- diff. The record in this narrowly-focused ArbCom case is insufficiently broad to inform ArbCom review of the range of problems Caspian blue identifies.
Teeninvestor's uncritical adoption of Caspian blue's inchoate and unsupported post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning serves to illustrate one of the notable consequences of this editor's on-going participation -- see diff. Perhaps after a record is been more fully developed in other dispute resolution venues, ArbCom may re-visit these general allegations. More optimistically, it is possible that ArbCom's resolution of the simpler issues in this case may constructively affect tangential matters like those Caspian blue sketches. --Tenmei (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Caspian blue's AN/I complaint: In the limited context of this ArbCom case, Caspian blue's "evidence" resists easy characterization. It perhaps goes too far to call it something akin to sour grapes, but the essential thrust reveals an abiding dissatisfaction with the outcome of a 2008 dispute resolution process. Clearly, Caspian blue continues to be vexed; moreover, I doubt that any conciliatory gestures would be well received.
Teeninvestor's explicit purpose in searching for Caspian blue had little or nothing to do with "evidence" or facts or factoids, regardless of the way such terms are defined in this ArbCom setting. The unsubtle purpose in soliciting Caspian blue's participation was concerned only with adding another "damning statement" in the ArbCom case. Teeninvestor's goal was to add to the number of "people have testified against Tenmei, showing how much damage he has done." In such heedless wiki-games, I reject Caspian blue's adverse "testimony" as irrelevant.
Yes, Caspian blue initiated a complaint at WP:AN/I in 2008. But NO, that unilateral decision by one person does not convert me into some sort of wiki-felon. At this distance from events, perhaps it doesn't matter how responsibility deserves to be allocated for whatever went wrong. What can be said with resounding clarity is that the dispute resolution "consensus" did not decide that my so-called "personal attacks" earned the heinous burden of unremitting opprobrium. NO.
Yes, this was one of those instances in which things didn't go well. But NO, I reject any implied claim that this is a terrible embarrassment which should be construed to diminish my full participation in this or any other setting. NO.
Without intending to reinvigorate too easily aroused resentments, I reject any and all insinuations which may be discerned in the substance or tone of Caspian blue's comments. The fact-of-the-matter is that Caspian blue took a characteristically forceful position a complaint-resolution thread, but nothing came of it. It is also a fact that there was a great deal that I did not understand then or now. I feel no sense of dishonor in my words or actions, only regret that my best efforts were ineffective. In that context and this, I adamantly reject the utterly undignified way Caspian blue tried to piggyback unseemly and unproven allegations on the shoulders of Nick-D's undoubted industry and earned reputation. NO.
In the context Caspian blue alone is responsible for creating, his dated grabbag of "evidence" persuades me to reject the amorphous allegations which are nothing more than catchphrases strung together randomly.
As for Teeninvestor and Caspian blue, collectively and individually, I reject the notion of feigned probity in a strategy and campaign of personal attack -- not because it's nominally prohibited by a wiki-policy -- but because it is both unseemly and demonstrably ineffective. --Tenmei (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Caspian blue: With caution, I respond seriatim to Caspian blue dissenting views below. In this trivial context, perhaps it will help if I post the first few sentences from the article about outside the box. Since there is an article about this commonplace analytical approach, I would suggest that it demonstrates how my observations can be construed as a genuine attempt to encompass the fullness of the "evidence" Caspian blue proffer in this ArbCom case setting:
"Thinking outside the box is to think differently, unconventionally or from a new perspective. This phrase often refers to novel, creative and smart thinking. This is sometimes called a process of lateral thought."
This "outside the box" analysis of your evidence is not harassment in the same way that my sandbox was not an attack page. Caspian blue protests too much.
It should come as no surprise that I do find Caspian blue's prose difficult to parse; and as a consequence, it takes some work for me to begin to figure out what Caspian blue means. As for the rest of the prose in this section, I leave it to others to fathom.
We learn from experience, and I have learned when attempting to communicate with Caspian blue, some things are best left unaddressed. I have also learned the hard way that Caspian blue is likely to find new causes for indignation in anything and everything I write. This is often awkward to evaluate finely; but there you have it. --Tenmei (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations having to do with "Tenmei's behaviour". Thus far, I have not invested much time in responding to the Gordian Knot of allegations which Teeninvestor and Caspian blue bundle together under the rubric "Tenmei's behaviour."
I do note that Teeninvestor and Caspian blue are asking ArbCom to expand the scope of this case to focus more closely on me. In a sense, the fact that a motion for expansion has been presented becomes a kind of recognition that the scope of this case can be construed more narrowly than Teeninvestor and Caspian blue would like to do.
Therefore, I am taking a hint from Teeninvestor and Caspian blue. I haved tried to limit my responses to serial allegations too numerous to count. There will be time enough to deal with all that in due course ... or perhaps there won't be any need to go into any of it? --Tenmei (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously Tenmei, if you haven't provoked Caspian Blue he wouldn't have testified against you in the first place. This says something about your habit of insulting and not working with other editors.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Tenmei's comment is not an analysis on my evidence at all but just continued harassment from his recent WP:GAMEing ANI. Since Tenmei changed the response again diff, so I don't think my initial response to his first attack is corresponding. So I reserve it as a diff too. Remember Tenmei, your quote is irrelevant of the case but just shows your wikistalking of me to WJBScribe and many others. Moreover, your obsession with me and canvassing to Roux led to block the both. As perceived by admins, and many others like this I, too, am totally fed up with Tenmei's behavior. It goes beyond inappropriate or uncivil, and is inexcusable and, frankly, appalling (I've never seen the admin say negatively about any editor except Tenmei), your continued harassment just secures my statement firmly. Also you should remind that my statement before the case was accepted was my last AGF on you along with not reporting your blatant twice 3RR violations, and other edit warrings. You're the one encouraging me to write about your history.--Caspian blue 18:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So Tenmei, when did you apologize to me that you're canvassing my activity to Roux and others? I don't have any memory, but why did you mention it? Besides, why did you do that?--Caspian blue 19:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tenmei, my sandbox was not an attack page. You protest too much -> Would you give an evidence on my alleged protesting to your "attack page"? You named it as such to ANI, and others perceived your first diff is totally "horrendous". Besides, why don't you please write your argument in several sentences? Be succinct.--Caspian blue 21:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Arilang1234

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by Tenmei: A benign foundation for Arilang1234'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 Arilang1234's contribution, the context helps to highlight those issues which ArbCom can address constructively. --Tenmei (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Evidence presented by Patar knight

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by Tenmei: The specificity of your contribution demonstrates an investment of time and thoughtful attention which is welcome. Please consider modifying the bullets by adding numbers or letters so that I am able to respond more effectively? --Tenmei (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A benign foundation for Patar knight'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 Patar knight's contribution, the context helps to highlight those issues which ArbCom can address constructively. --Tenmei (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The substance of the "evidence" offered by Patar knight is entirely overshadowed by it composition and style. Patar knight's contribution is quite elegant in its demonstration of "spin". The prose is crisp, clear, convincing -- and misleading.
The fact that this presentation is wrong becomes almost beside the point. Patar knight's one-sided presentation is a model I intend to revisit over the coming months as I continue to struggle with figuring out how I might improve my writing.
Patar knight's analytical axiom posits that any single diff or sentence can be parsed independent of its context. This conceptual aspect of Patar knight's participation in our ArbCom case is elegant, stunning -- as alluring in its theoretical appeal as it is wrong. The added attractivenss of Patar knight approach is that it helps me to begin to recognize how Teeninvestor and Caspian blue have applied corollary deconstructive schema with similarly flawed consequences.
Closer examination reveals that this approach is flawed; but it is quite convincing in a quick or casual read-through.
Illustrating the flaws with just one example: The first item on Patar knight's list of problematic words and conduct is counter-intuitive. It's about editing in ways which are congruent with what policy suggests and encourages. This talk page diff concerns material from the article's main page which was re-posted on the talk page where it can be discussed and re-worked. For redundant emphasis, my words in this diff actually manage to rebuff the claimed failure to show good faith:
"I removed the following from the bibliographic reference source citations because the non-standard format makes it impossible for me to evaluate. If this material can be modified in a more conventional manner, it might represent a welcome contribution."
Moreover, this so-called "problem" is accompanied by three other sections on the talk page. All address specific material which was moved from the article to the talk page:
Rather than being something for which an editor might have reason to feel embarrassed, this illustrates appropriate attention to those constructive steps which comprise a process of collaborative writing.
Furthermore, having addressed every element of this stub except the title -- effectively gutting the article by moving dubious material to the talk page, all participants active at that time were invited to engage in developing a potential new consensus about the title.
These are contributions which deserve approbation, not complaint. The remainder of this list can be addressed seriatim, but it will take some time to rebut this catalog of so-called misdeeds; and I have to wonder whether that would be time well spent?
In summary, each of the items on Patar knight's list can be shown to be demonstrably meritless in its rightful context. --Tenmei (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Responding seriatim to Patar knight's list: A significant investment of time will be necessary in order to address each of the items on Patar knight's list. The following is a start of that kind of seriatim responsive analysis.
Who can judge whether this is or is not necessary to help clarify the meaning of each identified "problem"? My expectation is that it will be seen that the perception of serial exacerbation simply fades away on closer reading. If I were not to have commented on the elements in this list Patar knight has created, one wonders if an impression that I was doing something controversial or provocative might otherwise linger ... when, in fact, what I was doing seemed a bit tedious at the time (and even more tedious to re-visit weeks later). I understand that a seemly attention to details is a good thing, but this particular list appears to have no purpose than to further a tired bit of overreaching ....
The significance of this list is not that it has much to do with the elusive subject of "Tenmei's behaviour." Rather, the exercise is worthwhile primarily because it amplifies and explains the confrontational character of this thread before Teeninvestor posted material from a source which still appears dubious on the basis of material adduced from Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty and this ArbCom case.
The list compiled by Patar knight may prove to be most helpful in relationship to the process of deciding how to handle the first of the non-standard remedies Tenmei proposes -- the sought-after deletion Deleting Mongolia during Tang rule redirect page.
Patar knight's list is not examined in the order in which is was presented on the evidence page; rather, aggregated elements of the list which appear to have notable similarities are considered together:
Seeking help at an Administrators Noticeboard:
At Ex. 13 -- diff: Patar knight's point of view is best illustrated in this comment, especially in the verb selection. Patar knight contrives a post hoc ergo propter hoc falacy by explaining that my effort to seek assistance at WP:AN/3RR was responsible for exacerbating contentious sensibiliteis. Patar knight observes that Tenmei "chooses to bypass the Reliable sources noticeboard, and only succeeds in increasing the drama." There something wrong in the decision to ignore my explanation for this action; and it becomes noteworthy that no one at that time identified this as an effort to make anything worse. Nor was there any suggestion that WP:RS might have been helpful until this policy was mentioned in "Evidence presented by Yaan" -- here. My words identify the need to nip a problem in the bud], which is another way of expressing an interest in moderating or ameliorating a problem at an early stage.
Tenmei: "I noticed that there is an Administrator's Notice Board which has to do with Reliable sources. That may be a more helpful venue, but urgently, we face a problem which we need to nip in the bud. Then, perhaps, we can move more constructively to discuss the issues at hand."
The important point has to do with the word "drama." Was this effort demonstrably an attempt to minimize the drama -- yes? Did my words explicitly explain this ameliorating intention -- yes?
Using the term "toxic" to describe a disruptive interloper:
The term "toxic" was defined with specificity in the context of Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. It occasioned no comment from the participants in the thread. Only now, in Patar knight's ArbCom evidence is the use of the term "toxic" questioned. No doubt in other context, toxic might be construed as [User:Patar knight|Patar knight]] does here, but that unknown context remains outside the scope of this case. for explicit clarity, I recopy the remarks in which I explain the antecedents of "toxic" as a new wiki-term -- here:
"In the last ArbCom election, one of the candidates expressed what I'd not yet managed to put into words for myself. Coren's statement included arguments in favor of
  • "More awareness of a growing issue that is poisoning the very essence of collaborative editing that makes Wikipedia possible: real-world factions that vie for control over articles, turning them into polemical battlegrounds where surface civility is used to cover bias, tendentiousness and even harassment. ArbCom needs to take a strong stance against that sort of "polite disruption" and those who use our rules of civility as weapons, recognize that long-term warriors are toxic, not vested, and investigate beyond surface behavior issues." [emphasis added]
  • "Less timidity in addressing issues related to contents (POV warring, tag teams, academic dishonesty). While it is appropriate that the Committee never rules on contents, it should be more active at curtailing content disputes. Academic integrity should become a priority; unlike "simple" incivility, the damage caused by editors misquoting, plagiarizing and editorializing destroys the credibility of our encyclopedia. [emphasis in original]
In this article and this talk page, I feel compelled to respond to Kraftlos's gentle and generous point-of-view by adopting Coren's less tolerant words as if they were my own. ...I'm against using Wikipedia articles as a battleground to advance real-world factional agenda. Whatever is going on here, we confront no innocent "newbie" in this instance."
Additionally, It is well worth noting that the ArbCom committee we have since learned that the contributor/trouble-maker known initially as Mr/Ms Anonymous and only later as Toxic 162.84.139.58, etc. was a likely sock-puppet of a banned user.
Patar knight appears to have searched for "toxic" at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty; and each use of the term was construed as evidence of "personal attacks."
At Ex. 8 -- diff: The complaint that Tenmei "calls an IP editor toxic" was in fact an identification tactic. The anonymous editor added to the thread with a variety of IP-addresses; and my thought was that by putting "Toxic" with the numbers would make it easier for everyone to follow developments, e.g,,
Tenmei: " Toxic 162.84.134.66 -- Everyone recognizes that this gambit is nothing more than "beating a dead horse;" and if you don't understand this phrase, click on the link and learn about a commonly-used English idioms."
This remark comes in a context of suggesting that there are better ways to further an off-wiki agenda in the context of collective editing, e.g.,
Tenmei: "Why not give us all a break? Your time would be better invested in studying How to Win Friends and Influence People."
Patar knight construes this as telling Toxic 162.84.134.66 "to get more friends;" but, in fact, the link to a wikipedia article offers a practical suggestion about a better way for this disruptive editor to make persuasive and constructive contributions.
At Ex. 9 -- diff: Patar knight construes this as something to do with three IP editors called "toxic;" but the fact-of-the-matter is that this is a continuation of the naming pattern addressed above.
At Ex. 11 -- diff: Patar knight notes "Thinks that all IP contributions to article are part of a PRC sponsored attack, and calls the anons “toxic warriors." Yes, all the IP contributions did come from one contributor and we later learn that yes, there is a off-wiki motivating schema at work, Patar knight's analysis doesn't encompass my response to the admission -- a comment which becomes quite critical in the catalogue of woe Patar knight has compiled. Without this amplification, I suppose that Patar knight's list of diffs might seem to suggest an imbalance that has no relationship to the reality of the thread as it evolved. Patar knight's immoderate implications are revealed as groundless in the actual words I used, e.g.,
Toxic 162.83.131.138: diff "im not teeninvestor. i am pro REpublic of China and affirming republic of china claim to mongolia. teeninvestor is pro People's repbulic of china and uese some dumb communist source, i dont sue communist source" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shortcut
Tenmei: diff Please, 162.83.131.138 -- "How can I encourage you to re-think your objectives in participating in the Wikipedia project. This article is not a battlefield." --(talk) 02:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tenmei: "This article has been under attack for some time by anonymous IP "contributors" with similar dubious sources which have been addressed ad nauseam. It appears to me that this may be a PRC-sponsored attack, but it's difficult to see how that odd suspicion can be clarified. The POV-bias of the serial attacks are instructive, but I don't know what to make of it other than to recognized the purposeful intent for what it is. For now, the function of this note is to help you (and anyone else who scans this thread) understand a bit more about the situation into which you've strayed with what would otherwise seem to be reasonable and welcome observations."
At Ex. 4 -- diff: Patar knight notes that Tenmei "brands opponents as PRC sponsored shill," and in the context of the list, there seems to be an implication to be drawn that this observation is either inappropriately "uncivil" or perhaps inadequately demonstrating "good faith," but Patar knight does not explain that this comment is part of an application for semi-protection from anonymous editors -- not is there an explanation that this protection is engaged on the basis of information not known by any of the participants in the thread at that point.
Tenmei: "This is the lowest level of protection for a Wikipedia article; and it stops all edits by anonymous users. The edit histories of this article and this talk page are troubling and unclear; but the cumulative impression convinces me that this step is justifiable. The problems here are arguably the work of a PRC-sponsored shill whose intentions are inconsistent with the goals of Wikipedia. I had hoped that this problem had something to do with an overly-zealous, misguided youth -- but, no."
In light of Ex. 14-above, it becomes plain that my observation was consistent with the data available about an anonymous, but entirely unhelpful participant in this stage of the article's development.
Collapsing IP texts:
In context, the collapsing technique seemed reasonable. I guessed that it was comparable to the action involved in moving dubious text from an article to the talk page where any questions could be resolved. For redundant emphasis, it is necessary to understand that it wasn't simply the number and substance of provocative, argumentative, distracting edits posted by the Toxic anonymous IP-trouble-maker. It was the over-large size of images that would so overwhelm the thread that it ws disconcerting. The idea had plausible merit, and was suggested by the nature of the disruptions. The serial additions were too big, and an arguably sensible solution was to make things smaller -- to collapse them into more manageable size.
The material which was disruptive would still be in place, but contained so that it doesn't overwhelm the development of thread conversations already proceeding.
At Ex. 3a -- diff: I simply suggest this as a possibility. It is noteworthy that no objection was made to this arguably sensible step at the time, nor at any point in the further development at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. Only much later and taken entirely out of context are questions raised by Patar knight, who describes this process as "simply collapsing comments he does not agree with, and calls these actions constructive." I does matter that this way of handling an on-going problem was presented to those participating in the thread at that time; and the initial posting takes the form of a question.
Tenmei: "Perhaps the simple act of collapsing Mr/Ms Anonymous' disruptive claims will be seen as arguably constructive in this situation?"
Again -- for emphasis, I repeat that there was no objection or expression of alarm. I inferred that this was construed by those participating in the thread at that time that this was a moderate, reasonable, and timely step towards calming the nature of a dispute with unknown parameters. Indeed, I thought at the time that this was a constructive gesture; and it did not occur to me that this could be pulled out of context as a cause for complaint as Patar knight has done.
At 3b -- diff:Patar knight dewscribes "collapsed good-faith comments as vandalism," implying something wrong was accomplished by collapsing the diff. This doesn't look like much when you look at the green and yellow areas at the top of the page; but if you scroll down to the bottom and click on the collapsed text, it's overwhelming. This posting stops discussion rather than enhancing it. The only one objecting to this collapse is Patar knight; and frankly, I don't understand how it happens that there should be such a the vast difference between this venue, in which collapsing is identified as something unhelpful, and that one in which the very same act of collapsing was arguably understood as constructive and helpful.
At Ex. 5 -- diff:Patar knight notes "collapsing more opinions which did not agree with him;" but in no place will it be possible for Patar knight to identify any words posted by me which express an opinion one way or another about the gravamen of complaint which is collapsed here; however, the words and tone are clearly intended to be provocative -- not designed to build consensus. Collapsing remarks whose only purpose was to inspire an argument was sensible, reasonable, helpful. In any case, whatever point Toxic 141.155.157.34 wanted to make was without relevance in the centuries which were the ostensible topic of this article.
Toxic 141.155.157.34: "LOL g purevdorj, no chinese claimed genghis khan was the first yuan emperor, kublai khan HIMSELF made his dear own grandfather POSTHUMOUSLY the first emperor of yuan"
At Ex. 7a -- diff and
At Ex.7b -- diff: These two diffs were collapsed in a context congruent with the explanations provided for Ex. 3a, Ex. 3b Ex. 5 above. Note that the second of these diffs -- Ex. 7b -- is that same as Ex. 2c below.
Incivility.
Patar knight can be excused for the fact that one item on the list mistakenly conflates diffs which don't go together. Expressed differently, I recognize the first two diffs as related. These diffs are addressed together in "Evidence presented by Tenmei." It is not immediately clear to me how the third diff relates; however, I am assuming that Patar knight construes the three diffs as having to do with incivility.
At Ex. 2a and Ex. 2b -- diff and diff: Patar knight marries diffs which do belong together. These diffs are addressed fully and set in an appropriate context in "Evidence presented by Tenmei" at Asserting RfA "Issue #2". This is a good example which illustrates thatPatar knight's catalogue of bad conduct was developed without any interest in the context -- neither the context which evolved across successive edits on the talk page, nor of the ArbCom evidence page. In this instance, I have provided explanations and diffs and even an image of the specific page I went to the library to examine in the course of this curious episode. Even with the proof of the actual page and the relevant sentence highlighted in yellow, Patar knight pays no heed. This cannot be glossed over as an insignificant oversight.
At Ex. 2c -- diff: Patar knight might have had a point, but this draft text was promptly removed before it could cause problems. What is curious is that the reason I substituted a bland, green band for collapsed text was precisely because I wondered if it would be distracting, but my motivation had nothing to do with any concern for disruption. I thought that it gave too much prominence to the anonymous trouble-maker. If anyone had inquired -- none one did -- I would have explained it as wrong because of the extent it might be seen as a kind of "reward" for the disruptive interloper. In other words, the colors and words managed to escalate "drama" when my goal was to mitigate, minimize, marginalize.
Summary of arguements.
Patar knight's speculation is untimely in May. Such questions as are raised in "Evidence presented by Patar knight" might not have been inappropriate in March. However, this time differential seems to me to be a relevant factor.
As for any of the difs on this list being "proofs" of incivility -- no, not even remotely something I imagined at the time, nor do I think anyone else would have seen it this way at the time. It would seem relevant that no voice was raised to suggest that any of the specific diffs were over-reaching or inappropriate.
Focusing on just one diff in order to discuss and clarify them all: It may appear counter-intuitive as examined in May; however, at that time in March, I construed the actions in Item Two, and specifically the third diff here as a mis-step, a mistake -- but not as an illustration of incivility or any kind of misconduct or policy-related issue. I was focusing solely on the plausible consequences in terms of a short-term goal, which was to encourage a disruptive trouble-maker to stop ... or at least to slow down the pace of problematic edits.
As for Patar knight's post hoc ergo propter hoc conclusion that this specific text was collapsed for any reason related to its substance or content, that logical fallacy is simply wrong. At this point nor at any other point in the development of this thread have I expressed any view relating to Daur people, Khitans or Mongolic language groups.
In the period during which text was collapsed, the collapsing action responded to anything and everything posted by the anonymous IP-entity regardless of content. In other words, the action was applied to all text until the group could figure out some other way of dealing with this persistent trouble-maker and the consequences of serially created problems too numerous to fathom at the time.
For absolute clarity: At this point, I was unconcerned about appearing uncivil. The interaction had nothing to do with encouraging collaborative editing; rather, any interaction with this anonymous trouble-maker was intended to encourage a persistent intruder to stop, simply to stop.
Bottom line.
It is not irrelevant that this intrusive disruptions were stopped at about this time in March. Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty was accorded "semi-protection" status, which effectively blocked the serial disruptions of the anonymous interloper. The rationale for that semi-protection was based on factors which were not known to me or any other legitimate participant in the thread at that time.
It cannot be irrelevant that the sense of the situation as perceived by participants in the thread at that time was eventually justified.
In different words, it cannot be irrelevant that Patar knight's sense of the situation, although documented and rationally adduced from available data, was ultimately not justified. Similarly, Patar knight's sense of what to make of my participation in this thread, although documented and rationally adduced from available data, is demonstrably mistaken. --Tenmei (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Response to Tenmei's post above Yes, it did take a while combing through contributions. And I still have Teeninvestor's to finish. Well, the bullets are now numbers (Done here:[52]) --Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by SYSS Mouse

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by Tenmei: A benign foundation for SYSS Mouse'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 SYSS Mouse's contribution, the context helps to highlight those issues which ArbCom can address constructively. --Tenmei (talk) 02:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SYSS Mouse was correct in guessing that subtext issues may have been intrusive and unhelpful elements in the dispute which developed in the context of Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty; but that observation was unhelpful without more specificity. I construed this arguably well-meaning comment as suggesting something to do with the conventional wisdom associated with "it takes two to tango."
Japanese nationality/ethnicity.
SYSS Mouse neutrally addresses an offensive label which Toxic 162.84.139.58 and Caspian blue present as an unseemly epithet. In responding to SYSS Mouse's suggestion that the label "Chinese" or "Japanese" represents a noteworthy subtext, I also address Patar knight's and Caspian blue's more complex allegations obliquely.
In "Evidence presented by Patar knight, Tenmei's actions," the list of alleged misconduct relies on an analytical axiom which posits that any single diff or sentence can be parsed independent of its context. This conceptual aspect of Patar knight's participation in our ArbCom case is not wrong for one of the diffs on that list.
Patar knight's last mentioned item on that list of terribles focuses on the one instance in which Toxic 162.84.139.58 attempted to introduce the term "Japanese" at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. I struck it out immediately; and I would undoubtedly do the same in future. Moreover, in retrospect, I regret my restraint in dealing more aggressively with this tactic in the past. There can be no place for this kind of attack in a discussion thread ostensibly concerned with 7th-8th century central Asia.
In a few crisp sentences, Toxic 162.84.139.58 went too far in posting language which
  • A. Introduced the issue of pro-Chinese bias -- diff
  • B. Introduced the allegation of pro-Japanese bias -- diff
  • C. Introduced the allegation of anti-Chinese bias -- diff
At Ex. 14 at "Analysis of evidence presented by Patar knight" -- diff: Patar knight notes only "Strikes out IP editor’s comments, and calls them toxic." I offer no apology whatsoever. My words are clear and appropriate in context. If anyone believes that there is a better way to have handled this kind of deliberate affront, I would welcome advice and suggestions; however, I do not regret that I did try to address this problem in the best and most reasonable way I knew how. The following diff is not cause for complaint:
Tenmei: "I have striken the unacceptable, unsupported and unprovable slurs suggested by Toxic 162.83.131.138. In this context, the record is very clear than I am pro-WP:V, which implies neither pro-Mongolian nor anti-Chinese nor any other kind of "pro-?" or anti-?" I am the neutral, 3rd party participant whose sole interest is in ensuring in Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty that Academic integrity becomes a practicable priority -- not just a theoretical nicety. Anything else destroys the credibility of our collaborative efforts to build a wiki-encyclopedia."
In view of the deliberately provocative nature of the diffs to which I responded, my comments are undeniably measured, moderate, calming. I do not engage the offensive terms other than to strike them out ... and the fact that nothing further developed along these lines on March 16th-17th suggested that my actions were understood as appropriate, justified, practical, reasonable under the circumstances. This puts Patar knight's "spin" in perspective.
In "Evidence presented by Caspian blue, Tenmei's long-term harassment", the same tactic is proffered for the same reasons with equally invalid justification. Caspian blue complains that Tenmei "... suddenly without any reason attacked my ethnicity and taunted my ancestors ....".
In this allegation, facts cannot be marginalized or made irrelevant:
Caspian blue's attack pattern: Identifying instances of "attack" represents a persisting element of Caspian blue's analysis in nearly every interaction with others, no less in this ArbCom case than elsewhere. This is part of a recognizable pattern in which Caspian blue frames a perceived, recurring label of victimization. This simultaneously stigmatizes the attacker and establishes a milieu in which any replies or rejoinders are framed as additional attacks. In contrast, anything further from Caspian blue is mere defense. This victimized status is conventionally accepted as it were axiomatic in most Wikipedia venues; but perhaps this practiced strategy will be less successful in this ArbCom venue.
Caspian blue's immediately perceived attack is set in a broader, long-term context of perceived victimization. This corollary becomes a structural element in a recognizable pattern. It augments and reinforces the original premise. Caspian blue introduces the familiar adjective "harassment" in this section, and other loaded words like "trolling" produce a predictable response. However, Caspian blue goes too far when "attacking ethnicity" and "taunting ancestors" appear in the same sentence. ArbCom has been encouraged again and again to re-visit WP:ANI#Tenmei's abusing AfD and personal attacks as ancillary "proof" of who-knows-what. In that thread, no allegations are proven. No facts are adduced. It didn't happen. Nevertheless, there is an escalation of these extravagant claims repeated anew in this ArbCom case.
This begs a question: "Were the participants in that long-ago WP:AN/I-thread so obtuse, so forgiving, so careless that they didn't notice egregious conduct of the sort Caspian blue now so confidently asserts?" No -- not very likely. The first paragraph of that WP:AN/I-thread complains about "anti-Korean sentiment" and "strong bias against Korean editors;" but these more general allegations were unproven as well. JzG characterized the thread as a "festival of stupid" -- here; but that assessment was too optimistic.
Now, Caspian blue attempts to piggyback inflammatory and false claims from the past in new circumstances. By any standards, this is nothing more or less than a tawdry personal attack, as such things are defined by Wikipedia policies; however, the broader issue for ArbCom transcends this trivial case. The bigger problem is the likelihood that tactics and strategies Caspian blue attempts to use here will have have been successful in other dispute resolution venues; and if not abated, such gambits will continue and are likely to be successful ad nauseam. --Tenmei (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Politically motivated "nationalism".
SYSS Mouse neutrally addresses an issue which Caspian blue presents as an accusation here:
"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[53]"
In responding to SYSS Mouse's suggestion that issues of nationalism represent a noteworthy subtext, I also address Caspian blue's more complex allegations obliquely. In this instance, a mere diff will not serve as well as an reproduced excerpt which went through several edits in the drafting stage of "Evidence presented by Tenmei". Issues of nationalism -- not ethnicity -- were legitimately considered in the context of questions about an arguably dubious source for most of the sentences in a newly expanded article text:
Note that in this diff, I provided a link to an English translation of the bookseller's abstract extolling the book's value in the "cultivation of patriotism." I plausibly construe this phrase as promoting an identifiable POV -- see "5000 years of Chinese history." For redundant clarity, this doesn't prove that the book is not a reliable source; but it does support the reasonableness of an inquiry about the "verifiability" of material attributed to this one source. Specifically, the phrase "cultivation of patriotism" in the seller's blurb is sufficient justification for further investigation:
Without more, the reasonableness and likely value of closer scrutiny is underscored by an explicit pro-People's Republic of China POV displayed in userboxes at Teeninvestor's userpage -- especially {{one China}}. For redundant clarity, there is nothing wrong with this userbox per se, rather, it's that the reasonableness of questions arising outside the confines of Teeninvestor's userpage are independently validated. "See also" links which are suggested by the "one China" userbox include:
This is plainly not any kind of attack aimed at the "ethnicity" of of "editors such as see his usage of {{one china}} ...," as Caspian blue alleges. Rather, it was merely prudent in the context of any kind of reasonable man standard.
Such an inquiry would have been reasonable on the basis (a) the online blurb without considering any other accumulating factors, and/or it would have been justified on the basis of (b) the legitimate but arguably provocative or controversial userbox.
Teeninvestor's contentious response to quite a modestly drafted request for more informatoin was a game-changing. At this pivotal moment, it was the response rather than the inquiry which leveraged the growth and development of something which eventually became the subject of an ArbCom case.
External factors were already present -- yes; but they do not represent the crucial fulcrum of dispute in this specific inquiry-response exchange. External factors do exacerbate the adverse consequences which ensue. These are an added components. The development of this article and the unfolding talk page dialogue cumulatively reveal the aggressive onslaught of an anonymous contributor with a demonstrable nationalistic agenda -- see here: and I reproduce the words below for redundant emphasis:
"im not teeninvestor. i am pro REpublic of China and affirming republic of china claim to mongolia. teeninvestor is pro People's repbulic of china and uese some dumb communist source, i dont sue communist source"
Caspian blue appears to allege that my participation caused something to go wrong ... or that something I did or didn't do deserves special attention in this ArbCom case. Caspian blue links an alleged "attack" against Teeninvestor with accusing "the IP user of PRC-sponsored vandalism[54]"
The links which Caspian blue proffers are tangential. Why not acknowledge that my tentative hypothesis is explicit here ...? The innuendo leaves me at a loss; but that doesn't matter if the reader doesn't look too closely and leaps to a conclusion that Tenmei caused this problem ....
In this more detailed context, I reject what appears to be SYSS Mouse's faulty reasoning even though the result is an arguably plausible comment. --Tenmei (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Caspian blue': Identifying instances of "attack" represents a persisting element of Caspian blue's analysis in nearly every interaction with others, no less in this ArbCom case than elsewhere. This is part of a recognizable pattern in which Caspian blue frames a perceived, recurring label of victimization. This simultaneously stigmatizes the attacker and establishes a milieu in which any replies or rejoinders are framed as additional attacks. In contrast, anything further from Caspian blue is mere defense. This victimized status is conventionally accepted as it were axiomatic in most Wikipedia venues; but perhaps this practiced strategy will be less successful in this ArbCom venue.
The immediately perceived attack is set in a broader, long-term context of perceived victimization. This corollary becomes a structural element in a recognizable pattern. It augments and reinforces the original premise. Caspian blue introduces the adjective "obsessive" in this diff, but other loaded words like "harassment" carry similar connotations.
In this instance, the preface of my comments above serve as a rebuttal to Caspian blue's predictable knee-jerk response. What more can I do other than repeat the words of my first sentence: "SYSS Mouse neutrally addresses an issue which Caspian blue presents as an accusation"? For redundant emphasis, is it really necessary to underline the words?
"SYSS Mouse neutrally addresses an issue which Caspian blue presents as an accusation here:
"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[55]"
In responding to SYSS Mouse's suggestion that issues of nationalism represent a noteworthy subtext, I also address Caspian blue's more complex allegations obliquely."
For deliberate, redundant emphasis and clarity, I respond to Caspian blue's diff by repeating my introductory explanation and by underlining the term issues of nationalism. --Tenmei (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
So this section that should be analysis on SYSS Mouse's evidence is filled with Tenmei's attacks on me. I wonder why Tenmei is so obsessive with me.Caspian blue 20:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Tenmei; reminded of WP:SPADE and WP:NPA because your communication skill is perceived by others like his attitude is horrendous. He is constantly making personal attacks, rarely assumes good faith, and his comments on talk pages are always exceedingly difficult to follow. --Caspian blue 16:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:
Response to Nick-D: Yes, I'm gratified that Nick-D's suggestion provided the impetus to re-visit the optimistic tone of words I'd forgotten here and here. In the following, I re-use as much of those old words as seem applicable in today's ArbCom case:
The opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games in Beijing included a timely reference to the first part of the initial section of The Analects of Confucius, "Is it not delightful to have friends coming from distant quarters?"[56] In the narrow context of my Wikipedia experience, I could not help juxtaposing another Confucian standard ...: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?"[57]
This [ArbCom] forum has not been previously challenged to contrive a "win-win" resolution, but this instance requires just that ....
This dispute began too quickly. Claimed offense came too soon .... That gambit of shocked indignation persists.
Teeninvestor frames issues consistent with a fixed confirmation bias and feigns not to understand anything which doesn't fit a pre-existing schema.
Dispute resolution failed ... because each [issue and/or policy] was re-framed with a confirmation bias; and Teeninvestor ... [avoided] neutral scrutiny of an extended charade by ... [declining to participate in] formal mediation ....
How can I avoid this in future without any meaningful opportunity to examine what happened in this instance? My words and actions have been seemly, constructive, prudent, [and ineffective.]
If ["Tenmei's behaviours"] were so irredeemable, then let Teeninvestor now support such facile claims with more than innuendo -- [see, e.g., diff, diff, diff.]
Perceived slights can fall by the wayside; but this case puts a spotlight on worthy issues, not trivial ones.
I'm seeking enough of a "win-win" outcome from this process so that the flimsy veil of any barriers to [figuring out how to work collaboratively] are rent asunder.
Teeninvestor's persisting cognitive dissonance and problems with ... [issue and/or policy] paradigms seem to foster a perception of bad faith where none exists; and worse, that point-of-view exacerbates the effect of logical fallacies which affect Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. The effort to re-focus on framing has failed and this pattern of mis-communication needs to be ameliorated.
[ArbCom]'s challenge is to achieve a kind of alchemy: to make things work out better than I dare hope .... [I]t should be clear that both parties have been working at cross purposes.
Aside: Yes, Nick-D is correct in observing that Tenmei's own words do provide a potentially useful illustration of consistent conduct (or "behaviour") in the widely separated circumstances. Yes, Nick-D is on point in recognizing characteristic similarities in the way Tenmei analyzes and addresses an impasse which develops as a consequence of inflexible inability or unwillingness to collaborate.
I do not use this opportunity to ascribe any labels to anyone else; however, I can and do claim that such language and arguments as these -- in 2008 and in 2009 -- are no proofs of misusing dispute resolution processes. --Tenmei (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Given that Tenmei's conduct - including his miss-use of dispute resolution processes - is an issue in this Arbcom case, I would suggest that the since-deleted Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Tenmei and Nick Dowling is relevant. The request was deleted after it was (quickly) rejected, but it provides an example of this editor's conduct. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, Tenmei's above comment meets WP:TLDR. According to Tenmei's favorite quotes, those who cannot remember the past is condemned to repeat it. What an ad nauseam. Q.E.D.--Caspian blue 21:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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. --Tenmei (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom might be able to help clarify whether this is a conceptual misunderstanding or simply a failure to be forthright?

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]

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.

Even though he has wasted thousands of bytes of text, Tenmei has yet to say what else should be done besides using WP:CITE to carry out WP:V. Had he read policy, he 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. Sadly, Tenmei can't understand that. Teeninvestor (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Vocabulary

The Wiktionary definition of words or terms may prove useful in avoiding sophistry ...? --Tenmei (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by Tenmei: The perceived need for this section evolved in response to the development of contributions to evidence and workshop pages in this ArbCom case. Whether or not it will prove helpful to the parties and other participants remains to be discovered. --Tenmei (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Caspian blue: In the absence of any policy or guideline which prohibits or discourages my continuing use of Wiktionary links, I will continue taking advantage of this opportunity to improve my expressive and receptive communication skills. Given the criticisms that my writing has engendered, I would have thought this would have earned positive consensus. The fact-of-the-matter is that I do use words carefully, or at least I try to do so. Whether or not any reader clicks on the Wikitionary links provided, the existence of these links shows that I invested time in creating a link. Also, this demonstrates that I invested some care in the choice of a specific word the context of a specific sentence.
I recognize that this may do very little in enhancing the effectiveness of my persuasive prose; however, this serves as incontrovertible proof that my writing is not casually or thoughtlessly drafted. --Tenmei (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
User:Tenmei treats editors and arbitrators here consisting of mostly native English speakers as editor with difficulty in knowing/understanding of such simple English words. I recommend User:Tenmei at least replace to use the unreliable Wiktionary with Oxford English Dictionary or other reputable dictionaries. If not, his demonstration of WP:V and WP:RS is proven as contradiction.--Caspian blue 15:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burden of rroof

The second paragraph at Burden of proof explains:

"Under the Latin maxim necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the general rule is that "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains." The burden of proof, therefore, usually lies with the party making the new claim. The exception to this rule is when a prima facie case has been made."

The first two sentences of Prima facie explain:

"Prima facie (Template:Pron-en, from Latin prīmā faciē) is a Latin expression meaning on its first appearance, or by first instance; at first sight. The literal translation would be "first face", prima first, facie face. It is used in modern legal English to signify that on first examination, a matter appears to be self-evident from the facts."

It may be possible to restate the locus of dispute using these arguably useful terms.

  • If compliance with WP:CITE creates a "prima facie" compliance with WP:V, then Tenmei is simply wrong a priori.
  • If compliance with WP:CITE does not establish a "prima facie" compliance with WP:V, then Teeninvestor misconstrues the burden of proof which remains necessary in order to comply with WP:V.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

{topic}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tang_Dynasty/Workshop&oldid=289957677"