: Definitely, I think that Tenmei should stop his disruptive behaviours.[[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]] ([[User talk:Teeninvestor|talk]]) 22:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
: Definitely, I think that Tenmei should stop his disruptive behaviours.[[User:Teeninvestor|Teeninvestor]] ([[User talk:Teeninvestor|talk]]) 22:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
=== [[User:Tenmei|Tenmei, the naming calling itself is a personal attack]] ===
Wikipedia is not a place to educate somebody's lack of his/her common sense. According to your logic, Tenmei, anyone who knows your disruptive behavior very well can call you "various names". Just imagine what others would call you given your "relentless harassment", and "habitual verbal abuses". As you already admitted yourself that my evidence has something to do with your proposed sanctions and two admins in good standing have confirmed my view and your behaviors. Think and look upon yourself. --[[User talk:Caspian blue|'''Caspian''' blue]] 17:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
== Tenmei's another verbal abuses ==
== Tenmei's another verbal abuses ==
Revision as of 17:01, 2 June 2009
Arbitrators active on this case
To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try purging the cache.
Tenmei's WP:TLDR winning again over the valid concerns on his incivility and harassment
I do think so. Various editors addressed their concerns that Newyorkbrad's initial proposals at the Workshop are not enough, and too soft given Tenmei's repeated disruption, but the final decisions are even softer than the first one. ANI can not stop his incivility and he has harassed me to expose my name to ANI, and he wikistalked me and attacked all editors even arbitrators during the ArbCom case. As looking other ArbCom cases, such behaviors are immediately sanctioned as a temporary injunction (Macedonian, Obama, Date Delinking, and others). However, Tenmei who did the horrendous behaviors even can evade from ArbCom due to his TLDR argument that includes his various attacks. I'm very disappointed by the impractical decision.-Caspian blue20:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am of the opinion that the ArbCom case should also cover Tenmei's disruptive behaviours elsewhere, and I feel the appropriate sanctions should be placed above. In fact, I feel Tenmei should at least get a mentorship, if ArbCom feels an outright ban is inappropriate.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder Arbitrators even read thought the whole evidence and workshop page where Tenmei excises various uncivil comments because of his too long argument. Tenmei even gave me personal attacks while NYB finished up writing the final proposals. But why the mentorship suggestion (thought he was informally mentored) is not considered. --Caspian blue21:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rejecting "Locus of dispute" as written
This specific "proposed finding of fact" should be rejected as written.
A new, better locus of dispute should be adduced.
I write to encourage votes in opposition; and I hope those who have already voted re-visit this because the first and last sentences are fundamentally flawed.
NO to 1st sentence. The case originated when Teeninvestor rejected any and all inquiry relating to WP:V, WP:Burden and WP:RSUE, alleging vandalism and disruptive editing instead. This persistent confrontational strategy is endorsed and encouraged by those voting in support Newyorkbrad's locus of dispute. These votes effectively disregard Tenmei's locus, Teeninvestor's locus and, most importantly, Teeninvestor's restatment at Summarizing "more or less the entire dispute". This obfuscation marginalizes even the attempt to pursue a strategy of collaborative editing; and for this very practical reason, I could not disagree more with this sentence
NO to 3rd sentence. In the specific context of this case, it is procedurally unsound to adopt the expanded scope proposed by Teeninvestor and Caspian blue. One of the few areas of agreement acknowledged the initially limited focus of our case when it was opened. I could not disagree more with this sentence.
In support, I highlight a crucial fulcrum or pivot between "A" and "B" below:
"We appear to confront a small scale replica of what has occurred in other, wider disputes ... informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point of this escalating drama:
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." [emphasis added]
In this instance, Tenmei's paraphrase of Coren's moderating analysis was posted on the talk pages of all arguably interested participants at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. The "out of control" accusatory phrasing was repeated in diffs on the talk pages of PericlesofAthens and Arilang1234. This suggests a deliberate strategy rather than a merely transient outburst.
In these pivotal diffs, Teeninvestor cannot feign to have misunderstood my writing. These are plainly Coren's paraphrased words; and yet, this modest effort to frame collaborative editing issues was immediately converted into a contrived hostile encounter. This destructive pattern is reflected ad nauseam on the evidence and workshop pages. Despite the cumulative attacks, the edit history confirms my participation focused on issues, but this outcome tells me clearly that I was wrong to take the high road.
In voting to support this awkward "spin", ArbCom's counter-intuitive judgment effectively affirms that the contributions of Teeninvestor and Caspian blue were above reproach and I was not.
Five remedies are proposed, but I don't understand how to convert these terse aphorisms into something meaningful and timely.
1. I recognize the practical reasons for avoiding Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty and Teeninvestor. I can comply with this ArbCom directive, but I don't understand the verb "restricted" in the sense that it can be construed as a punishment for misconduct. It is fair to say that Caspian blue's so-called "evidence" and other contributions are designed to ensure that I would get "disadvantage from the decision." I adopt Caspian blue's language below as a restatement:
"His topic-ban is just imposed to "one" article, and he does not edit Chinese/Mongolian related articles. Therefore, there would be very low chance for Tenmei to meet Teeninvestor. He would not get any disadvantage from the decision." [empahsis added]
2.
3.
4.
5. In principle, the pro-forma continuing jurisdiction is crucial. In practice, Caspian blue's characteristic focus on my "disadvantage from the decision" makes continuing jurisdiction more important than in other cases. This ArbCom case could have been something other than a zero-sum game, but there you have it.
ArbCom confirms that I'm the loser in this dispute; but I can't feign to be contrite because I simply do not understand. In this case, core values are confounded when ArbCom rewards what is bad and denigrates what is good.
There are only six votes for retaining jurisdition; and no interests are served by abandoning a number of problems which have been exacerbated by ArbCom's intervention. --Tenmei (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Nobel Prize website here makes it easy for anyone to listen to the Nobel laureate delivering this speech in English. I re-visited this lecture many times across a span of years. I especially struggled with this one sentence.
I do not know how this could have been handled better. I do know that, having opened the case, it's in your hands. --Tenmei (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another list and "disruptive" canvassing by Tenmei
Given Tenmei above rant to the very generous final remedies, I wonder why Tenmei listed the all Arbitrators and their email addresses onto his talk page[1]. I do not want to assume that it is another "enemy list" (me, Nick-D, LordAmeth). However, his canvassing to arbitrators to strongly demand for revising the "Locus of dispute" that he does not like[2][3][4][5][6][7] is beyond my understanding of his behaviors. -_-;; His topic-ban is just imposed to "one" article, and he does not edit Chinese/Mongolian related articles. Therefore, there would be very low chance for Tenmei to meet Teeninvestor. He would not get any disadvantage from the decision. However, why does he cause more troubles for himself doing this? As proposed, Mentorship would be better for him.--Caspian blue19:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Q.E.D. My modest effort to frame collaborative editing issues was here converted into a contrived hostile encounter. This pattern is emblematic; and it destroys any hope for anything but confrontation to ensue. I don't understand how or why this is left out of ArbCom's decision-making process. I can at least call a spade a spade, but that doesn't really do much to suggest alternative which could have avoided this problem at the outset. --Tenmei (talk) 19:54, 30 May 2009Tenmei (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sick and tired of Tenmei's persistent obsession with me and agenda of hunting me down. He has canvassed today to editors' talk pages[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] where he previously wikistalked my edits, and harassed me regardless of the fact that he was all irrelevant of my discussion with them. The current ArbCom enforcement on him is purely due to his disruption and incivility to the article in question but he still tries to antagonaize me all over the place. He gloated with sending messages of my activity and mocked me with various insulting naming calling. Unfortunately the ArBcom does not care about his "continued harassment", and inappropriate behaviors.
Two admins in good standing but are marked as Tenmei's enemy (just like User:Mattisse's plague list), and have expressed their concern on Tenmei. Tenmei has to see that almost all editors consider his behavior very disruptive to the community, but in his canvassing, I'm on the spot light again. He thinks that he did not do wrong. Why would the committe not regulate this kind of behavior? I do not want to meet this guy's relentless disruption any more.--Caspian blue19:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NO. No reasonable man would complain about this seemly posting. This what I wrote:
Seeking help in presenting thoughts clearly
I write to ask for prospective help. In a sense, I'm only interested laying the foundation for the future. Perhaps this may be construed as taking steps to avert problems might be mitigated by a timely comment or suggestion ...?
3.2.2 Tenmei and dispute resolution. "... many of Tenmei's talkpage posts and submissions during this arbitration case have been very difficult for other editors to understand, to the point that experienced participants in dispute resolution have had difficulty in following them, despite what we accept as Tenmei's good-faith best efforts to assist us in resolving the case."
ArbCom remedies included:
3.3.2 Tenmei and dispute resolution: "Should Tenmei become involved in any further disputes with other editors, whether concerning the content of articles (beyond ordinary day-to-day editing issues) or more formal dispute resolution procedures, he shall seek the assistance of a volunteer mentor or adviser to work with him in maximizing the value of his presentation by assisting him with formulating it in a clear and civil fashion."
3.3.3 Editors advised: "Editors who encounter difficulties in communicating with others on-wiki are advised to seek help from others in presenting their thoughts clearly, particularly when disputes arise or when dispute resolution is sought."
It is clear that ArbCom anticipates future difficulties; and I guess I need to do the same. Arguably, my previous postings on your talk page are congruent with exactly the sort of thing ArbCom wants me to do in future; and I'm willing to invest in learning about how to disagree without being disagreeable.
If you want to discuss this off-wiki, I'm working on figuring out how to set up an appropriate e-mail address.
Wikipedia is not a place to educate somebody's lack of his/her common sense. According to your logic, Tenmei, anyone who knows your disruptive behavior very well can call you "various names". Just imagine what others would call you given your "relentless harassment", and "habitual verbal abuses". As you already admitted yourself that my evidence has something to do with your proposed sanctions and two admins in good standing have confirmed my view and your behaviors. Think and look upon yourself. --Caspian blue17:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who's kidding who? When I delicately tried to seek help during the period in which I was working on the workshop page, an inquiry about how to disagree without being disagreeable was converted by Caspian blue into harassment -- offered as evidence of long-term harassment and offered as proof of wikihounding and trolling? ... and also offered again as a basis for an injunction? This is overreaching. This is wrong.
What's going on here? ArbCom allowed this toxic long-term warrior to become the central figure in our ArbCom case without giving me any way to know that the locus of dispute had changed. Now, when I begin to make tentative gestures to find a constructive "spin", the little boy who cried wolf intrudes yet anew. --Tenmei (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I want from the ArbCom is to stop Tenmei harassing me
See another naming calling. I just do not want this guy comes near me. This long-term and disruptive harassment by Tenmei should be stopped by the Committee.--Caspian blue21:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This policy is aimed to protect victims of genuine harassment which is meant to cause distress to the user. Unfounded accusations of harassment is considered a serious personal attack.
NO -- Your role as posturing victim is not credible in the context of your own words in this ArbCom case. The word "harassment" has a very significant wiki-meaning. It is not to be used casually. You have used this loaded term with extravagant excess. It must stop.
In "evidence presented by Caspian blue," there were many so-called examples of harassment, including this diff, which is small.
There was nothing untoward in attempting to offer a consoling gesture to someone who had been crushed in a dispute which I didn't understand. As I recall, Bukubu had been overwhelmed by the kind of tactics I was only begin to recognize as characteristic. I didn't understand it, but I found it pointlessly hurtful. In November, I posted the following:
A plausibly calming thought?
The seasonal colors of autumn leaves -- perennially expected, but always a bit of a surprise ....
This is not harassment I can't imagine what motivated you to use this term in this setting; but in part, I suspect it is because I didn't respond in the ways you'd anticipated. I was guided by one sentence from the top of the evidence page. I took it as an admonishment -- "Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior." I now see that it was wrong to do so.
There is much I don't understand about how Wikipedia really works -- as contrasted with hortatory policy pages, but I do know that a serious complaint about harassment requires something more substantial than autumn leaves. --Tenmei (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many times have I told you, stop. It is extremely frustrating that arbcom and clerk do not care to intervene him to stop his verbal abuse during the whole time of ArBcom. FWIW Tenmei trimmed his comment because he may feel some of his verbal attacks have to be removed, then that's good for his recognition. I just wish this kind of abuses by the individual be stopped by ArbCom intervention; lurking and wikistalking my edits, harassing me, and advocating your agenda to editors whom I encountered.
If I were the only one who has perceived your verbal abuses and harassment, then why everyone who've given "evidences" on your disruption, have suggested that you should be further restricted or banned from the community for one year or get sanctioned with assigned mentorship? I got to know today that you even created sandboxes just solely to attack me and Nick-D at Dutch Wiki (Teeninvestor informed NYB of it)
Why are you to be the sole claimer for your agenda on English and various accuations? Because you've been behaving disruptive during the ArbCom and the Tang article as well as various articles in the past. I don't care about your editing, but I just do not want you to "get me" and spread your agenda about me outside areas that you are not related to. You're indeed "out of line". Over the past 8 months, I've been harassed by you. You are the one to invite me to write down your abuses, and attacks because of your attacking me and seeking vengeances to George. Why my name has to be in your canvassed message because you think the remedies on you are due to my evidence? You've been behaving disruptive, so you're going to be sanctioned. I have no intention to work with you ever, so please desist your spooky behavior.--Caspian blue04:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Nobel Prize website here makes it easy for anyone to listen to the Nobel laureate delivering this speech in English. I re-visited this lecture many times across a span of years. I especially struggled with this one sentence. --Tenmei (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
