Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Evidence

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

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

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

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

Evidence presented by Teeninvestor

What more can I say? I feel I have presented enough evidence to show that the article has reached a stable version and the source is verifiable. Nevertheless, I shall address these complaints once more.

Consensus reached at subject article

The subject article has, contary to Tenmei's claims, reached a consensus version. Initally, I put material from my source on the article after I saw it on the Article Rescue squadron, which was deleted without explanation by Tenmei and others. Afterwards, I solicited a 3O from other editors, who, when working with existing editors, helped form a consensus which unfortunately was not accepted by Tenmei. For evidence of the article's stability, check: diff.

(Added) Tenmei's showing of posts during the dispute, merely shows that he has not understood what I said; that as of now, a consensus has been achieved at Inner Asia during the Tang dynasty, and the edit history is evidence.

Alleged misuse of sources

I feel that the "alleged misuse of sources" is overhyped. I have provided the source, with full bibliographic information, and a link which demonstrates what I said it would be- a Chinese history book. This was confirmed by user:Penwhale. In addition, no errors or anything else was reported from this source, either by Tenmei or any of the editors whose opinions I solicited. Tenmei has admitted he has no knowledge of the subject, and made a very unreasonable demand that all citations must include all the text in original Chinese, as seen here: diff. This is not only unfair but it would cause wikipedia to be unable to use any foreign-language soruces. This source is a reliable, verifiable source that has been provided with standard bibliographical information. Previous doubts about the source were raised, but it was deemed reliable by the community, as shown by this linkdiff

Wikipedia's policy is that a source should be provided with bibliographical information, and perhaps a link confirming its existence and purpose(etc... it is what the author says it is). Tenmei seems to be unable to understand that. Arbitrators, can you explain this? That a book, once SOURCED WITH CORRECT INFORMATION AND A LINK, IS LIABLE TO BE USED. For example, this Chinese-language source is used at Tang dynasty, a featured article: "http://engine.cqvip.com/content/f/91697x/1998/000/004/jj01_f1_3317535.pdf". Nevertheless, the featured article review team did not feel it necessary to demand "the original text in Chinese, put into a citation on the article" which is what Tenmei demands.

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

In addition, the information in this article is verified by three more sources I have added to the article-

• http://books.google.com/books?id=J7fFhc2VM5sC&pg=PA145&dq=Tang+Xueyantuo&lr=&ei=LWbZSdDnA6G2zQSbvozACA#PPA144,M1, Marc Samuel Abramson, Ethnic identity in Tang China, ISBN 9780812240528,
• Book of Tang, "http://www.njmuseum.com/rbbook/gb/25/xingtanshu/xts.htm"
• Zizhi Tongjian, "http://www.guoxue.com/shibu/zztj/zztjml.htm"

All three of which is online, and can verify the Chinese history source I have used. These sources show the information in this article is correct and NPOV.

I believe that this is a sad example of an editor editing an article that he is not knowledgable about. Such could only lead to confusion and incapacity.

Screened by User:PericlesOfAthens and User:Penwhale

In addition, the source has been screened by the two above users and the information as well, and they have shown the information to be perfectly correct as well as the history book being what I said it is: a history book.

Unfortunately, user:Tenmei did not check the above source, as well as the four above sources I mentioned. I believe the problem with the "sourcing" is best summed up by this diff: diff

Tenmei's behaviour

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

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

diff diff

Other editors have repeatedly warned him, only to have their advice ignored. In his extreme, Tenmei even engaged in vandalism, as shown here, on the article Salting the earth, in which he wanted to merge the article in question into. THis was a clear case of vandalism and disruption of WP:POINT. He is unable to communicate or be understood by other editors. diff

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

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

(added) a simple use of WP:ANI's noticeboard function turned up even more drama for this user. diff Also, these disputes on talk pages. diff diff

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

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

Third opinion on Tenmei

In addition, other users expressed opinions about him here: diff and here: diff(where he made a bland, disgusting attempt to insult another user of engaging in a "conspiracy").Teeninvestor (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Tenmei's abuse of the dispute resolution system

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

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

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

Evidence presented by Tenmei

Conflation of issues is a common theme in archived ArbCom cases -- no less in this case than in Franco-Mongol_alliance or PHG. I initiated this ArbCom case to address three narrowly-focused questions which were sometimes conflated in the broader context of a fourth question. In contrast, Teeninvestor construes these four questions as non-issues; and instead, these issues are leveraged, re-framed and conflated in perceived problems with my "behaviour." --Tenmei (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Asserting Verifiability is not disruptive

These diffs are adjacent, and I construe them as linked in condemnation of disruptive editing:

• "YES THANK YOU. TENMEI YOUR DISRUPTION HAS BEEN THWARTED."

PLUS

• "LOok at Tenmei's intentional disruption as shown by this article. Despite a source being presented to him contradicting him he refused to admit he was wrong ..."

File:Tertiary source 144.jpg

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

Together these two diffs and the illustrative example they encompass would appear to argue that WP:V becomes disruptive; but I draw distinctly opposite lessons. The talk page thread (before Teeninvestor active participation) shows WP:V as an effective tool for building common ground. Collaborative working relationships grew which Teeninvestor deceptively labeled as a "tag-team."

A cursory examination of the arc of collaborative diffs refute the allegations about "Tenmei's disruption ... [d]espite a source being presented to him contradicting him he refused to admit he was wrong," e.g.,

• 2 Non-standard citation format
• 3 Difficult-to-parse text
• 4 References
• 5 Inadequate citation
• 6 Re-examining the focus of this article
  • 6.1 Re-naming article
• 7 tenmei is trying to discredit the original content by claiming tang taizong arrograntly claimed the title "heavenly khagan" title for himself, having no control over mongolia, it says right in Mr. Latourette's book that he was given the title after beating the Gokturks by the gokturks. the "source cannot be verified" excuse is ridiculous, then we half to slash off most of wikipedia's content because no one is checking the sources. if you want to know, its easy to go to the local libaray, or order the book. stop whining that taizong gave gimself the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.153.147 (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

For redundant clarity, the last diff was linked in its entirety.

For redundant clarity, a quick scan of the edit history of Kenneth Latourette show that, in addition to everyting else, I invested time and research in improving the article about this author as a step in the process of trying to use WP:V as a consensus-building tool .... This genesis of accusations about my "disruptive behaviour" cannot withstand closer scrutiny. --Tenmei (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Asserting core policies is not disruptive

The following is copied from the initial RfA "Issue #1" here:

I posted the following diff; and if I was wrong in any part of it, I must know so that I will not continue to make similar mistakes in the future.

Teeninvestor insists that words and actions consistent with this diff are disruptive. If what I've said and done is persistent disruption, it needs to stop.

When I and others questioned an unfamiliar text in Chinese, Teeninvestor asserted forcefully that I and others had the burden to prove error before deleting the edit and/or before posting a "dubious"-tag or a "synthesis"-tag on an article page. This view was expressed with increasing levels of derision personal affronts. Example: diff. If what I've done is persistent vandalism, it needs to stop.

There is something deeply amiss when the attempt to assert WP:V as a point of common agreement becomes an illustration of temerity, as has happened here. Teeninvestor has variously construed by edits, and indeed my attempt to use the dispute resolution system as a kind of effrontery. The question for ArbCom becomes one of suggesting alternate strategies --Tenmei (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Asserting Burden is not disruptive

The following is copied from the initial RfA "Issue #2" here:

Teeninvestor denies that WP:V incorporates WP:Burdens other than formatting; but the following is a step in a constructive direction:

• 23:33, 16 March Teeninvestor understands "I am required to provide citations and standard bibliographical information; that is all."

The question becomes one of building from this foundation of of agreement. --Tenmei (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to "Screened by User:PericlesOfAthens and User:Penwhale"

Q.E.D. --Tenmei (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Asserting Use English is not disruptive

The following is copied from the initial RfA "Issue #3" here:

Teeninvestor denies that WP:RSUE incorporates any WP:Burden in Chinese; but the following is a step in a constructive direction:

• 13:49, 17 March Teeninvestor understands "I used information in the article to write this. Also, that guideline has long proven to be impractable and destructive; check the most featured articles do not follow it."

The question becomes one of building from this foundation of of agreement. --Tenmei (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Asserting conflation with intrusive off-topic issues

The following is copied from the initial RfA "Issue #4" here:

In Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty, real-world factions have vied for control, turning it into a polemical battleground. In the venue which evolved before my eyes, long-term warriors have proven to be toxic. Under "battlefield" conditions as I encountered them, academic integrity becomes an all-encompassing priority. Any other course of action undercuts the credibility of the article and our collaborative wiki-encyclopedia. Although Issues 1-3 stand on their own, they have become conflated in real-world disputes over 21st-century borders or oil and mineral rights. The initial impetus for this article was "salting the earth" in an article about Central Asia in the 7th-8th century in order to undercut a dispute in an article about China in the 12th-13th centuries; and the article has been continually attacked by those intending to affect current affairs by re-writing history. This perverts my ability to conribute to an article about a relatively minor topic; and it became increasingly difficult to follow on a coherent thread of reason.

• A. diff -- genesis of battlefield?
• B. diff -- genesis of a tag team coordination? diff -- "consensus was made out entirely of pro mongolian editors"?
• C. diff -- "mongolia was owned by chinese before mongols ever appeared, and belongs to china"?
• D. diff -- pro-ROC? pro-PRC??
• E. diff -- "Chinese histiography is quite reliable. In any case, its far better than vain attempts to create a supposedly 'Mongolian' identity"?

The title of Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty suggests something to do with the history of 7th-8th century Central Asia, but an unexplained backstory or subtext intruded unexpectedly again and again. This bigger problem cannot be resolved with this case, but at least ArbCom is now expressly alerted to the existence of a pernicious metastasis which will continue ad nauseam in other articles until effective counter-measures can be contrived. On the basis of my editing experience, this is not an isolated incident. The specifics are limited to the article and parties here; and the ambit of this dispute is also emblematic of problems affecting unrelated editors and articles. --Tenmei (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to Evidence presented by Teeninvestor

Teeninvestor's "Consensus reached at subject article"

• 1. Claims of benign consensus-building are belied here and here. --Tenmei (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• ADDENDUM here: This is a contrived post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

• A. 23:55, 16 March Teeninvestor adds DO NOT EDIT UNTIL DISPUTE IS RESOLVED + {{POV}}-headnote
• B. 21:27, 1 April Teeninvestor deletes {{POV}}-headnote "Seems to be no more disputes- disrupters gone"

After Teeninvestor urges an editing halt, the seemly compliance with that edit-summary suggestion becomes "proof" that dispute resolution is moot and that problems are naught but the handiwork of "disrupters." No -- wrong. --Tenmei (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• 2. Claims about deleting material without explanation is belied in the following edit history. I posted the following a priori diffs in the article and talk pages before I did remove text which remains questionable even today:

• A. 02:52, 14 March Tenmei added "synthesis"-headnote and "original research"-headnote
• B. 02:54, 14 March Tenmei added "dubious"-tag at end of 4th-¶
• C. 02:54, 14 March Tenmei added "dubious"-tag at end of 3rd-¶
• D. 02:55, 14 March Tenmei added "dubious"-tag at end of 2nd-¶
• E. 02:58, 14 March Tenmei deleted "unsourced, unverifiable text" from 1st-¶

• TALK 03:24, 14 March Tenmei deleted Dubious posting: inconsistent with WP:V 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. The 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}}. Again 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 were independently validated as likely to deserve closer scrutiny. "See also" links which are suggested by the "one China" userbox include:

• Legal status of Taiwan -- re: Taiwan independence
• Central Tibetan Administration -- re: Tibetan independence
• East Turkestan independence movement -- re: East Turkestan independence

• F. 03:25, 14 March Tenmei deleted "deleting material incompatible with WP:V--see talk"
• G. 00:34, 15 March Teeninvestor reverts with an ALL CAPS edit summary which suggests: (1) that I've questioned "credibility," which is a reasonably close but more narrowly focused corollary of "verifiability;" and (2) that I've deleted the source for two alternate and conflated reasons -- (2a) that it is "a source I don't agree with" and/or (2b) that I'm wrongly pushing a personal point-of-view THIS WAS EDITED BY ME MY FRIEND. AND I CAN ASSURE YOU THE SOURCE IS CREDIBLE. DELETING A SOURCE YOU DONT AGREE WITH IS WIKI:NPOV

Despite the edit history above, Teeninvestor changes tactics at this point, complaining instead about deletions which appear unexplained, implying my passive failure to provide data with which to form an opinion, but also implying a pro-active campaign to exacerbate a dispute in which the casual reader is likely to conclude that "it takes two to tango":

• TALK 20:47, 16 March 2009 "The point is that you are disrupting an article and deleting text without explanation ...."
• TALK 20:49, 16 March 2009 "... deleted large, sourced sections without explanation."
• 3RR 01:13, 17 March "... repeatedly deleted content without explanation ...."
• TALK 01:19, 17 March "... reverted sourced, verifiable material without explanation."
• 3RR 11:26, 17 March "... reverted without explanation."

Teeninvestor's tactic is here shown to be without substance -- false, known to be false and presented with the intention that the allegation would be accepted as valid by anyone scanning the talk page threads, the WP:3RR thread, and this ArbCom thread. This neither proves nor disproves very little in itself, but this response does permit ArbCom to set aside a potent distraction.--Tenmei (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to Teeninvestor's "Alleged misuse of sources" =

Teeninvestor's claims:
_________________________

• "Alleged misuse of sources"

Inescapable issues:
_________________________

• Verifiability = WP:Verifiability
• Use English = WP:Verifiability#Sources (Non-English sources)
• Burden = WP:Verifiability#Burden of evidence

FACTS: In the absence of any diff which expressly alleges "misuse of sources," this asserted subject heading cannot be verified. Without specific compliance with WP:V, this conclusory statement cannot be evaluated. Proving credibility remains a burden that Teeninvestor cannot fulfill with specificity. The assertion is shown to be demonstrably dubious. In a sense, this illustrates what I term "inescapable" issues as identified above and as initially presented as Issues #1, #2 and #3. --Tenmei (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

_________________________

• 16 March, Teeninvestor states: WE JUST HAD PERICLES SCREEN IT AND HE HAS STATED THIS INFO IS CORRECT.

_________________________

• 27 March, PericlesofAthens states: Look, the only thing I could do at this point is to get a hold of your source, see it with my own two eyes, and verify all the material that you have presented.
  
• 8 April, PericlesofAthens states at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty#New sources: I have come armed with new deadly explosive sources from my library at George Mason University .... I will use these sources which cover roughly the same topic to verify whether or not Teeninvestor's statements in this article (from the disputed source) are correct or not, since no one seems to be able to get a hold of his source. For that, I will need some time to consult these new sources on specific issues, and then I will produce quotes here (with page #s). That ought to put a stop to this little charade.

FACTS: On March 16th, Teeninvestor stated that PericlesofAthens had already verified what was posted; and yet, ten days later, PericlesofAthens explicitly reveals that he has not seen the book, not verified anything attributed to that source, nor is any verification likely in the near future because the book is inaccessible. In a sense, these two sentences demonstrate one of the reasons why WP:V is essential -- not only in terms of this relatively narrow subject, but in all articles large and small. --Tenmei (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Three weeks later, PericlesofAthens announces that he/she will compare the unverifiable text with reputable sources which are accessible. This is good, but at the same time, ArbCom cannot overlook the fact that PericlesofAthens is confirming

• that Teeninvestor's ALL CAPS claims about the would-be imprimatur of PericlesofAthens was simply false, known to be false, and presented with the purpose of convincing others to wrongly rely on that false claim as sufficient or adequate compliance with the essential requirements of WP:V
• that it was not disruptive to seek further clarification, even to the point of initiating this ArbCom case in the absence of any other practicable option.

I don't understand what PericlesofAthens means by putting "a stop to this little charade." Wikipedia defines "charade" as "something apparently real but based on pretence/pretense," similar to "sham."

All the exchanges which are encompassed within the ambit of this disputepersuade me that Pericles of Athens joins Teeninvestor in arguing that I'm the bad guy here. In other words, I'm persuaded that PericlesofAthens intends to imply that I'm the one who has created a needless "charade" on the article talk page and here in this ArbCom case. However, as I add up this sum, this diff about "new sources" makes it inescapably plain that the only one involved in a charade is Teeninvestor. --Tenmei (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The inconclusive thread cited here simply withers in a setting marked by the links and diffs above. --Tenmei (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to Teeninvestor's "Tenmei's behaviour"

Addressing only the phrase "troubled history" -- this is too frail a reed, relying on WP:AN/I threads with tangential bearing on issues here. The first diff is now shown more clearly in its content context because of this; and the second diff is established its relevant context by this. --Tenmei (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Analysis

My presentation of evidence begins with the spare approach already disclosed in Issues #1, #2, #3 and #4.

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

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

The evidence templates presume a punitive outcome which we need not accept a priori. The ascent of reason presents a better hortatory objective. The deliberative process has already helped me discover how to move beyond my initial statement in that I now know it's better to incorporate graphics as a tool for parsing a conflation of policy and content.

Wikipedia is better served if the ArbCom process manages to move us beyond those overly rigid "solutions" which were identified as unworkable in 2008. A relevant maxim is

If your only tool is a hammer, all your problems will look like nails. -- Sir Charles Pollard

I'm challenged to figure out how to comply with ArbCom procedures without mis-framing the issues or causing unintended consequences. My thinking is informed by Taxonomy, which explains that a military taxonomy of terms to describe various types of military operations is fundamentally affected by the way all elements are defined and addressed -- not unlike framing. In terms of a specific military operation, for example, a taxonomic strategy based on differentiation and categorization of the entities participating would produce results which evolve quite differently from a strategy based on functional objective of an operation such as peacekeeping, disaster relief, or counter-terrorism. The illustrative text in the evidence templates implies categorization based on Wikipedia's policies, rules, guidelines, etc. ... which is a little different from a strategy based on Wikipedia's functional objectives.

I assert core functional objectives in the corollary maxims "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information." and "Process is important."

Cost/benefit analysis of collaborative conflict resolution reveals benefits from reduced duration of conflicts and reduced likelihood of escalation of conflicts. The metrics of ArbCom's purpose are fulfilled when the process affects more than just the parties' concerns and issues. Academic integrity must be an indispensable priority because, unlike "simple" incivility, the damage caused by editors misquoting, plagiarizing and editorializing destroys the credibility of our encyclopedia. --Tenmei (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

References

• Harris, Geoff. "'If Your Only Tool Is a Hammer, Any Issue Will Look like a Nail:' Building Conflict Resolution and Mediation Capacity in South African Universities,"Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning. Vol. 55, No. 1 (January 2008), pp. 93-101.
• Keyes, Ralph. (2006). The quote verifier: who said what, where, and when. New York: Macmillan. 10-ISBN 0-312-34004-4; 13-ISBN 978-0-312-34004-9
• Oneka, Michael. "If a hammer is your only tool, everything starts to look like a nail." Resource (Wageningen University and Research Centre). February 8, 1996.
• Strang, Heather and John Braithwaite. (2001). Restorative justice and civil society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10-ISBN 0-521-00053-X; 13-ISBN 978-0-521-00053-6

Evidence presented by Yaan

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

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

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

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

• [1]
• [2].

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

• [3].

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

• [4].

I don't think that "You don't have any source to show that my source is wrong" (My inference from Teeninvestor's proposed principles for this arbitration, [5], [6]) is enough to establish the reliability of a source. In any case I therefore reject these two proposed principles I just linked to.

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

Evidence presented by Nick-D

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

Tenmei's behaviour

I was one of several editors involved in a dispute with Tenmei over the Hyūga class helicopter destroyer‎ article (the essence of which can still be seen at: Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer). On the basis of this experience I endorse Teeninvestor's comments on Tenmei's behavior, and can confirm that the details he posted relating to the dispute on this article are correct. In this dispute Tenmei created a massive mountain out a molehill concerning a single sentance by posting vast and uncivil messages in which he never actually explained his position, despite repeated requests that he did so. He deliberetly sat out the process of developing consensus text on the issue in question and, in a clear WP:POINT violation, 'reset' (his word) the debate after consensus text had been endorsed by all the other involved editors ([7]). Despite the involvement of several other editors Tenmei personalised this dispute on me in a manner which, to be frank, I found disturbing. An attempt at mediation initiated by Tenmei collapsed before it began when I withdrew after he started canvassing against me with a highly disruptive editor - this obviously wasn't a sign of good faith! ([8]). Following this Tenmei continued his peronalisation of the conflict upon me by attempting to start a RfA on me, which was swiftly rejected by Arbcom.

Tenmei was warned against his behavior over this article repeated times ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13] and [14] are a few examples). As he has continued his highly disruptive pattern of posting vast quantities of text in arguments, making uncivil comments and personalising disputes ArbCom should consider imposing sanctions on Tenmei if this RfA is accepted. Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Coldmachine

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

Tenmei's behaviour

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

While Tenmei seems guided by high standards in terms of editing content, s/he also seems unable to engage with the process of consensus building in a fashion which would yield an effective outcome. Tenmei has been warned[15] about obstructing the process of consensus building – which I witnessed in an attempt to ‘reset’ discussion, for example - and for refusing to present arguments in Plain English preferring an overly elaborate and convoluted presentation of views which could be considered disruptive editing – a behavioural guideline which covers any “campaign to drive away productive contributors...that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.” Other editors have commented on this also, for example here and at ANI.

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

Evidence presented by {your user name}

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

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

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