Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Workshop

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

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

This is neither a motion nor a request as currently formulated.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Unbiased enforcement of standards. 1) Even though the concept of "unbiased enforcement" is quite subjective, it is still something important to keep in mind for all parties involved (especially for those with administrative authority). A main frustration I have is that there are highly involved authority figures who have consistently imposed their judgement on others in a highly selective manner. It's fine if everyone who jaywalks gets criticized, but it's discrimination if a few out of all substantial offenders are consistently selected for criticism. In our context, some people even went further than this. Namely, they would game the system to prevent certain parties from being sanctioned or simply refuse to scrutinize other parties' behaviours by summoning various excuses. In a practical perspective, these types of actions undermines the moral authority of people who engage biased enforcement of standards and render them less likely to be trusted by parties whom they exerted unjustified biases against. This can in turn contribute to factionalism and a loss of cooperative spirit. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Comment by Arbitrators: Comment by parties: Comment by others:

Request for correcting a mistaken block on my user account

2) As stated in my evidence part, I was mistakenly blocked for 24 hours on July 22, 2011 [1]. Elen of the Roads once analysed this case and clearly expressed her opinion that this blocking was a mistake [2]. I was actually a victim of an unbalanced enforcement of rules or a kind of improper conduct that eventually ruined effort preventing edit-warring in editing that page. Elen told me [3] that refactoring block logs unfortunately is almost unfeasible and suggested me save the diff or link of the discussion and her opinion. Here I wonder if it is possible by this chance, as my request, that Arbitration Committee can correct this mistake in any more formal format. Thank you in advance! --Lvhis (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Needing more time to respond

I'm currently travelling in remote areas in South East Asia where Internet connection is hard to find so I need more time to respond. Please give me about 2 weeks. STSC (talk) 07:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions posed by Tenmei

In the context created by the evidence presented thus far, the differences and distinctions between Forest management and Arboriculture suggest arguable useful patterns, e.g.,

• Arboriculture is about one tree at a time
• Forest management is about many trees at a time

__________

IMO, the evidence only addresses what to do now, today. What next?

IMO, more difficult questions have to do with what could have been done or should have been done differently in the past?

IMO, more constructive questions have to do with making guesses about how to address similar uncertainties, problems, stumbling blocks, etc. which are likely to arise in the future? --Tenmei (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

@ Qwyrxian

Do you know the idiomatic expression "can't see the forest for the trees"? Would you agree that your evidence here is generalist and reductive? Are you willing to tweak your evidence in response to questioning? If so, can you see how it may help ArbCom to revisit your evidence with a wider perspective? On the basis of lessons learned the hard way, what could have averted this ArbCom case? what about the future? --Tenmei (talk) 18:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Please allow me to answer in bullet points:

• Yes, I am aware of the phrase. No, I do not know how you intend for it to apply here.
• I will tweak my evidence if you can show I've actually made a mistake (like, I picked the wrong diff, or it doesn't say what I think it said). The general thrust of my evidence, though, captures my feelings regarding the case, so I am unlikely to make major changes. I am happy to continue discussion either here (or on talk, or wherever a clerk says is correct; as a side note, feel free to move this whole response if this isn't the place to do it).
• I am happy to help ArbCom in any way I can in this matter. I have a feeling, though, that I disagree with you about the "wider perspective" we're supposed to have. I would need more information from you before I could say with certainty if I can/want to do what you propose.
• The last two questions, are, of course, the big ones. I think that the way to avoid ArbCom cases is to have editors act in good faith, according to policies, and communicate in a way that others understand. That hasn't happened consistently on these pages. I plan to propose or comment on other proposals for specific changes to improve the editing environment after some more evidence is up. Which leads me to...

I have a question for you: do you plan to actually submit any evidence in this case? Proposals are all fine and good, but it seems to me that before the Arbitrators can really make a decision about what to do for the future, they need to understand what the problems are now; they gain this understanding through a presentation of evidence. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not plan to submit evidence -- only encouragement for ArbCom to consider the long-view, which remains my primary interest. Qwyrxian's unexpected and unwelcome banning proposal here causes me to re-think what I need to do ... and why. --Tenmei (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears Q wanted practically everyone who conflicted with him on the page to be indefinitely block and it appears Oda Mari supports it. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I want those people whose contributions prevent collaborative editing to be topic banned. To be honest, I'm not even certain that STSC should be topic banned--xe clearly has a battleground mentality, but, on the other hand, rarely edits either the article's or the discussions, so the disruption is minor. But you (Bobthefish2) are actively working to impede collaborative editing, and Tenmei is complete inability to see that xe's just as biased as anyone else combined with xyr inability to clearly and concisely articulate xyr points. I don't really know why this should come as a surprise--I said many months ago, long before mediation, that I thought the two of you were the biggest obstacles to progress on the articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

You know... before you start go all Donald Trump and hold other people responsible for all the problems, at least make sure you are clean. Because as far as I know, you are a major contributor and the one person who had some of the most BATTLEGROUND attitude among us. Your claim of how I was actively working to impede collaborative editing is a new low, as I've never worked towards that objective or caused closure to an otherwise productive discussion. If you accused STSC of BATTLEGROUND, what you've just written is far worse. That's even more pathetic than how certain people tried to discredit others by citing SPA. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I've provided plenty of evidence that Tenmei's negative role in this is not simply an "inability to communicate" but rather he was also actively attacking other people. It is rather concerning that you'd misrepresent facts like this to promote a dishonest representation of what's happening... and I haven't even talked about your neglect in mentioning you and some other people's role in all this. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

@ Magog the Ogre

Do you know the idiomatic express "can't see the forest for the trees"? In your initial analysis of issues in this case, you suggested here that "some rules/guidelines for conduct and censure of the bad apples from Arbcom would be quite helpful". Are you willing to tweak your comment in response to questioning? If so, can you see how it may help ArbCom to revisit your suggestions with a wider perspective? On the basis of lessons learned the hard way, what could have averted this ArbCom case? what about the future? --Tenmei (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

@ John Smith's

Do you know the idiomatic express "can't see the forest for the trees"? In your initial analysis of issues in this case, you observed here that you have been "baffled by some discussions" and "disheartened by the lack of ability to agree on almost anything". You also suggest that "[s]ometimes prevention is better than cure". Are you willing to tweak your comment in response to questioning? If so, can you see how it may help ArbCom to revisit your impressions with a wider perspective? On the basis of lessons learned the hard way, what could have averted this ArbCom case? what about the future? --Tenmei (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of it.

What exactly is it you want me to tweak and why?

I think the only way the ArbCom case could have been avoided was if certain users had left the disputed pages. But that's what normally happens with disputes that get this far. John Smith's (talk) 10:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You put your finger on a constructive, forward-looking point which is otherwise missing, unacknowledged -- "sometimes prevention is better than cure."

I always understood this to be a unifying theme in your cumulative diffs -- trying to prevent things from getting out of hand, trying to ameliorate, to mitigate the effects of a strategic jabs and pokes and hits which unfolded across months. I perceived your edits as tactical, but your words were informed by analysis which was a little different than mine.

When you and I felt "baffled" and "disheartened", the sense of puzzlement was the effect intended by someone else. Time after time, your responses were arguably constructive; but perhaps something could have been better in one or more instances. I don't know.

Am I alone in wanting ArbCom to help us address difficult-to-formulate questions about what you or I or we could have done differently at each step of the way, e.g.,

1. What could you have done differently to blunt the effects of recurrent poking? What opportunities did you fail to notice? What might you do in future?
2. What could I have done differently to deflect a pattern of provocative diffs? What options did I fail to recognize? What can I do in future when I encounter something similar?
3. What could we have done differently ...?

Why questions like these? The "why" is complicated.

Do you anticipate encountering variant dilemmas in the coming months and years? Is it inevitable that we will always respond ineffectively? For example, your moderate diffs at Talk:Senkaku Islands #Edit warring were marginalized -- twisted by Bobthefish2 and thwarted by Qwyrxian. If you had written nothing, your silence and mine would have encouraged more of the gambit which needed to be discouraged. What you did write didn't work out well. My endorsement didn't help. In retrospect, this was one of the pivotal incidents which illustrate "sometimes prevention is better than cure."

In contrast, Qwyrxian's perception of "both sides pretty much entrenched and non-collaborative" and Mercutio's "plague o' both your houses!" becomes the self-fulfilling prophesy which overwhelms all else.--Tenmei (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. Well I think it will all depend on sanctions of sufficient severity being imposed on certain parties to ensure that matters can progress. What exactly those will be, I don't know. I'll have to think about it and consider other people's proposals too. John Smith's (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

@ SirFozzie

In response to your diff here, please consider this:

• Axiom + Looking forward: A structural premise of arbitration is that all necessary parties have been named; however, the scope of primary issues which frame this case must also encompass future contributors who have not yet caused us to run around the mulberry bush. In other words, it is necessary to anticipate that everything to do with the Senkaku Islands is likely to continue to attract those whose single-purpose perspective will skew our collaborative editing process.

Does this help you (and the rest of us) in coming to grips with the marriage of conduct-related and content-related issues?

Is this premise (or this question) distinguishable from trying to teach fish how to swim (班门弄斧) and talking past each other (鸡同鸭讲 or 雞同鴨講)? --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

@ David Fuchs

In response to your diff here, please consider this:

• Axiom + Looking forward: A structural premise of arbitration is that all necessary parties have been named; however, the scope of primary issues which frame this case must also encompass future contributors who have not yet caused us to run around the mulberry bush. In other words, it is reasonable and necessary to anticipate that everything to do with the Senkaku Islands is likely to continue to attract those whose single-purpose perspective will skew our collaborative editing process.

Does this help you (and the rest of us) in coming to grips with the marriage of conduct-related and content-related issues?

Is this premise (or this question) distinguishable from trying to teach fish how to swim (班门弄斧) and talking past each other (鸡同鸭讲 or 雞同鴨講)? --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

@Jclemens

In response to your diff here, please consider this:

• Axiom + Looking forward: A structural premise of arbitration is that all necessary parties have been named; however, the scope of primary issues which frame this case must also encompass future contributors who have not yet caused us to run around the mulberry bush. In other words, it is reasonable and necessary to anticipate that everything to do with the Senkaku Islands is likely to continue to attract those whose single-purpose perspective will skew our collaborative editing process.

Does this help you (and the rest of us) in establishing a context for addressing the problems "that MedCom defers and throws [ArbCom's] way"?

Is this premise (or this question) distinguishable from trying to teach fish how to swim (班门弄斧) and talking past each other (鸡同鸭讲 or 雞同鴨講)? --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the question, actually. I dispute that all parties must be named; as a matter of course, ArbCom routinely place topics under discretionary sanctions, which can serve to impose the community's behavioral expectations on new editors. Thus, existing parties' bad behavior is addressed, and a way to deal with future behavioral problems is placed as part of the resolution. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. --Tenmei (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

@Coren

In response to your diff here, please consider this:

• Axiom + Looking forward: A structural premise of arbitration is that all necessary parties have been named; however, the scope of primary issues which frame this case must also encompass future contributors who have not yet caused us to run around the mulberry bush. In other words, it is reasonable and necessary to anticipate that everything to do with the Senkaku Islands is likely to continue to attract those whose single-purpose perspective will skew our collaborative editing process.

Does this help you (and the rest of us) in moving towards the "consensus [which] could be reached if everyone behaved and where Arbcom could help by making sure everybody does"?

Is this premise (or this question) distinguishable from trying to teach fish how to swim (班门弄斧) and talking past each other (鸡同鸭讲 or 雞同鴨講)? --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Tenmei

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create and maintain a high-quality encyclopedia using a process of collaborative editing

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Credibility and accuracy

2) The credibility and accuracy of our content is extremely important. Our policy of verifiability requires that article content which is challenged or is likely to be challenged must be attributable to a reliable source supporting the information presented.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

ArbCom's failure

1) This case is a direct consequence of ArbCom's past failures to act.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I do not understand this proposal. I don't believe this dispute was ever raised with the Arbitration Committee until this request was filed, whereupon we accepted it fairly quickly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't agree. We can only take what's put on our plate. SirFozzie (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

@Newyorkbrad -- in the context established by your comment here, it is counter-productive to posit that Senkaku Islands represents something like a first impression or an ArbCom "case of first impression" -- compare Coren's hortatory opinion here which informs my thinking. --Tenmei (talk) 18:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Gaming the system

2) Instances of "gaming the system" highlight flaws which are susceptible to amelioration, mitigation, repair.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@ SirFozzi and David Fuchs -- Do these underlying premises assist you in coming to grips with the marriage of conduct-related and content-related issues?

@Jclemens -- Does this restatement help establish a context for addressing the problems "that MedCom defers and throws our way"?

@Coren -- Do these otherwise unstated presumptions help us move towards the "consensus [which] could be reached if everyone behaved and where Arbcom could help by making sure everybody does"?

* Premise, Looking forward in the long-term. A structural premise of arbitration is that all necessary parties have been named; however, the scope of primary issues which frame this case must also encompass future contributors who have not yet caused us to run around the mulberry bush. In other words, we can reasonably anticipate that everything to do with the Senkaku Islands is likely to continue to attract those whose single-purpose perspective will skew our collaborative editing process.

* Premise, False dilemma in the near-term. The perception of "both sides pretty much entrenched and non-collaborative" is unhelpful because it is a self-fulfilling prophesy; and it is uninformative. struck out in response to "spin" by Bobthefish2 --Tenmei 22:52, 25 August 2011

@Newyorkbrad -- Does this "re-framing" or "spin" seem responsive to your comments and questions? --Tenmei 20:02, 24 August 2011 struck out and re-posted in questions section --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

One point I'd agree from Tenmei's post is that Qwyrxian's critique about "both sides pretty much entrenched and non-collaborative" is unhelpful and is, in fact, slanderous. Given a number of parties had contributed greatly in bringing clarity to the matter, it is nothing short of insulting to condemn everyone's participation as "non-collaborative" and "entrenched". --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Tenmei's strike-out shown immediately above [4]. This is an example of Tenmei's attitude where he regularly attacks the intentions of other people with labels like "spin", "toxic long-term warrior", "marginalize", "shill", etc. Here's a small (but not limiting) sample of similar attacks in the past [5][6][7]. It wouldn't have been a problem if these comments were backed up by real arguments, but they really weren't. :/ --Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

These are not all my words, but I propose them as if they were my own. --Tenmei (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Real world factions

1) ArbCom acknowledges 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

We are well aware that this is another example of an ethnic-national dispute of a type that gives rise to a great number of disputes on Wikipedia, including a significant portion of arbitration cases. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

As Brad said... this is nothing new to us. SirFozzie (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

@Newyorkbrad -- is it possible for you to perceive the overview you posit is part of the problem, not part of the solution? The phrase "another example of an ethnic-national dispute" contrives arguably reasonable pigeonholes and a false dilemma at the same time. For example, the perception of "both sides pretty much entrenched and non-collaborative" is unhelpful, not because it is obviously false, but because it is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Your sentence has a similar self-fulfilling character which tends to obscure rather than clarify. For example, the analysis fails to acknowledge -- and marginalizes -- the cumulative edits of Qwyxian, including his ability and willingness to change across a span of months, as explained here.

In this ArbCom context, your task is to parse the available data to distinguish between a dispute which is primarily about water and rocks and something else which has water and rocks as significant elements. Do you see the difference? Are your words opening a door or shutting out something unforseen? --Tenmei (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

@ SirFozzie -- What is crucially different about this specific case are the "pro-Wikipedia" contributions, the "framing", the "spin" and the analysis which Qwyrixian and others added (or tried to add). For example, I adopt the words of Phoenix7777 here as if they were my own, e.g.,

"trying to make the Japanese POV claim to NPOV is nonsense. What we should do is to represent the sources accurately not to represent the editor's 'POV'/'NPOV' interpretation ...."

Since February, I have returned to this pivotal edit again and again trying to understand how to move us to the next step. Tangentially, I was persuaded by the reasoning of Kanguole here at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC; and I adopt the words as if they were my own: "We should not be campaigning to change common usage, or be more 'correct' than our sources". Phoenix7777 and Kanguole and I are on the same page. This stands on a separate footing than the predictable dichotomies of an "ethnic-national dispute". --Tenmei (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Rules and policies as weapons

2) ArbCom acknowledges "polite disruption" by those who misuse our rules and policies as weapons.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Vested toxic warriors

3) ArbCom acknowledges toxic long-term warriors who are misconstrued as "vested" contributors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Information asymmetry and moral hazard

4) ArbCom acknowledges the marriage of "content" and "conduct" informed by the related concepts of Information asymmetry (ja:情報の非対称性) and Moral hazard (zh:道德风险); and this means less timidity in addressing issues related to content including POV warring, tag teams, academic dishonesty, etc.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I do not understand specifically what you are driving at with this proposal. Please explain in a bit more detail (but only a bit more, please). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

These concepts are illustrated in the diffs of Qwyrxian and Bobthefish2 in one short thread Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 7#U.S. Control prior to 1972. --Tenmei (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Curtailing content disputes

5) ArbCom acknowledges that failure to curtail content disputes has unintended consequences. Wikipedia fails when academic integrity is not a priority, e.g., unlike "simple" incivility, the damage caused by editors misquoting, plagiarizing and editorializing affects the credibility of our work.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Transparency

6) ArbCom acknowledges that inadequate transparency in the dispute resolution process limits the ability of the community to find ways to mitigate future problems.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Reasons and justification

7) ArbCom acknowledges that there is a need for ArbCom to explain decision-making, including reasons and justification.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is why we use a somewhat stereotyped, sometimes overlong format for our decisions in full-fledged arbitration cases like this one. I gather that you are alleging that the committee has failed to provide adequate explanation in a relevant, past instance when this dispute was raised before us, but as noted above, I do not recall that and would appreciate a link or a citation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Discretionary sanctions

8) ArbCom establishes discretionary sanctions, which can serve to impose the community's behavioral expectations on new editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Added in response to Jclemens' comment here. --Tenmei (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposal by Qwyrxian

At least for now, I’m not going to write out a full proposal per the template below. I know that Arbcom has some standardized formats and wording that it uses for decisions of this type, but I'd have to actually search through prior decisions to identify the exact phrasings; I feel that current Arbcom members can do that better than I can. In other words, I trust Arbcom to find the proper context and justifications for whatever remedies are taken.

As for actual remedies, my proposal is quite simple:

• The topic of Senkaku Islands, broadly defined, is placed under discretionary sanctions, and possibly placed on 1RR. Note that, given that Liancourt Rocks is already under sanction, and it seems believable that other similar areas could become problems as geo-political disputes arise (East China Sea, Spratly Islands, Kuril Islands), there may be some sort of benefit to drawing a wider net on sanctions, but I don’t know if that’s actually warranted or where exactly the boundary should be drawn.

• Bobthefish2, Tenmei, and STSC are indefinitely topic banned from articles relating to Senkaku Islands, broadly defined, and may appeal this decision to the committee no earlier than one year from the time sanctions are imposed.

• Bobthefish2 is additionally warned that tendentious editing and baiting other editors are not acceptable, and that WP:CIVIL is a policy, not a suggestion. Further violations of this policy anywhere on Wikipedia will result in blocks.

• Tenmei is additionally instructed to learn ways of communicating more simply and effectively on article talk pages. While all editors must take some responsibility for handling variants in English register and dialect, at some point WP:COMPETENCE comes into play and Tenmei’s overlong and confusing talk page comments have come very close to breaching this point. Furthermore, Tenmei is reminded that consensus determines what is "pro-Wikipedia", and that xyr belief in the rightness of xyr actions does not entitle him to any special treatment or deference in content disputes.

• All editors are reminded of the need to assume good faith in the actions of other editors, to use the dispute resolution process to handle arguments, and to not engage in tendentious editing.

• Finally, as I said in my opening statement, while I don’t want Arbcom to “rule” on the content issue, if Arbcom has any suggestions for a mechanism whereby we could establish a lasting rule that would not be subject to indefinite challenge, then I believe that such input would be helpful.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Among the several misguided recommendations, one that I find particularly glaring in your proposal is that you advised an indefinite block on STSC when he's not showing an attitude that's more BATTLEGROUND than many others (including yourself). To my knowledge, neither you nor other people had attempted to warn him or correct him on whatever problem you perceived. If anything, your indef block recommendation for STSC appears to be yet another indication of a battleground mindset. It would also raise questions as to whether or not you are actually ready to be an admin. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

As for Tenmei, I think his biggest problem is his philosophical/abstract long arguments with graphs. If he promises to stop it and to talk and focus on specific issues like other editors do, I don't think the ban is needed. But once he post that abstract wall of text again, the ban should be applied. Oda Mari (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

What about his various vile personal attacks on other people like [8], [9], [10], and [11]? Do you think they should also cease with his philosophical/abstract long arguments with graphs? Or should they be permitted to continue? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they are personal attacks. Oda Mari (talk) 10:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that an immediate topic-ban on Tenmei might be a bit too harsh, but I agree with Oda Mari that if he doesn't change it's the only way forward. Maybe a trusted editor or administrator that speaks Japanese fluently should speak with him in his first language to explain what it is that he's doing wrong and how he needs to change if he doesn't want to be topic-banned. Maybe someone has already tried talking to him in Japanese, but I thought it was worth at least suggesting. John Smith's (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

@John Smiths' -- The underlying presumptions in this thread are at odds with something you wrote very recently. At the outset of this case, you will remember having written this: "We have tried to get outside views, but no editors are willing to stick around and help move things forward. Which is understandable, and Wikipedia can't force people to come along to resolve problems .... [and] as an opportunity to stop escalation." Your words characterize and summarize my strategic edits thus far:

• "tried to get outside views" -- an outside perspective, yes
• "willing to stick around" -- patience and persistence, yes
• "[willing] to help move things forward" -- forward-focused, yes
• "to come along to resolve problems" -- distilling unstated premises, yes
• "as an opportunity to stop escalation" -- mitigating escalation, yes

In other words, yes -- we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking which was used when the problems were created; and at the same time, yes, everything must be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler. --Tenmei (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposals by Oda Mari

I agree with Qwyrxian's proposal on topic ban. Plus, Lvhis should be indef. topic banned on Senkaku related articles. As I pointed out in my evidence, Lvhis has been concentrating on Senkaku related articles/talks too much.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I suppose the 3 of us (Qwyrxian, Oda Mari, and myself) at least agreed that Tenmei should be blocked. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposals by Bobthefish2

Proposed principles

Template

1) I am a person who will take responsibility of his actions as long as I feel rules and criticisms are applied to everyone in a fair manner. The following are measures I consider to be appropriate based on my Analysis of Evidence below [12]:

1. Tenmei, Phoenix7777, John Smith, Magog the Ogre, Qwyrxian, STSC, and myself are admonished for incivility - Since all of us had authored comments that could be consider to be offensive
2. Tenmei, Phoenix7777, John Smith, Oda Mari, Qwyrxian, STSC, and myself are admonished for battleground - Since all of us mistrusted each other (for good or bad reasons)
3. Tenmei is topic blocked for 6 months from these articles - Since there is no debate on how destructive he is and how little he actually contributes
4. Everyone involved in recent edit-warring are admonished for edit-warring - Since these actions prevented progress
5. Tenmei, John Smith, and Qwyrxian are admonished for false edit-war/GAME accusations against me - Since these misguided campaigns were particularly slanderous
6. Magog the Ogre and Qwyrxian are sanctioned for misconduct as administrators - For everything I said here [13]
7. Everyone involved is advised to take a 3-month wiki-break from the articles of concern to cool-off
8. An experienced supervising administrator is assigned to monitor future discussions and serve as a mediator that actively promotes good faith between editors (which is something that could've helped)

Beyond all this, I am willing to apologize to everyone I've supposedly mistreated, but I will only do so if other parties would apologize for their own inappropriate behaviour (if any).

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:

Proposals by User Lvhis

Proposed principles

The substantial reason for such hardly solvable dispute finally bringing involved parties to here is mainly due to that the dispute is tightly related to an international territory dispute, as said "this is another example of an ethnic-national dispute of a type that gives rise to a great number of disputes on Wikipedia, including a significant portion of arbitration cases. ". As one of involved parties, here I just propose some principles rather than assert which particular party or parties should be banned or admonished, which I believe Arbitrators can make their right decisions based on their experience and on their analysis of all evidence provided.

Wikipedia and its important policies: NPOV, No original research, and Verifiability

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopaedia, and this effort is best achieved based on its Five pillars. Core content policies for these Five pillars are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (:NPOV), Wikipedia:No original research (:NOR), and Wikipedia:Verifiability (:SOURCE). These core content policies should be re-emphasized for this Arbitration case as they are even more critical in solving the dispute on Wikipedia pages related to ethnic-national dispute. In terms of NPOV here, Wikipedia shall not be forced to take side when its pages involving international territory dispute. In terms of NOR and SOURCE, the use of Wikipedia for advocacy for one side of such international dispute with editors own original research or opinions from unreliable sources, is prohibited. Using original research is prohibited not only in editing the pages in question, but also in discussions about editing the pages because such original research has impeded and will impede reaching consensus on editing as well as collaborative editing. Such original research is usually POV or national POV as specifically for the pages in question.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'd disagree with one thing. Original research should be allowed in discussions (i.e. deciding whether an RS is right or wrong). In a discussion that took place previous to your participation [14], we've had a number of Japanese RS' that made false interpretations and claims about a Chinese primary source article. By the way, that link is a perfect showcase of why discussions are going nowhere with the current lineup of editors. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

NPOV policy and relative guideline should be applied on articles with consistency

2) The current case is very similar to the case Liancourt Rocks that has been an example in the guideline WP:NCGN#Multiple local names. To solve current dispute and reach consensus, all involved parties/editors, and future editors, should learn to compromise to avoid giving the impression of support for a particular national POV. It is important to apply Wikipedia's NPOV policy and relative guideline with consistency on similar articles. Otherwise, dispute will keep occurring not only on the pages of the current arbitration case bur also on the other page. The reputation and credibility of Wikipedia will be damaged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT again? Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Evidence#I didn’t hear that the Liancourt Rocks was the common name. Oda Mari (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

All parties/editors should obey the policy WP:CIVIL

3) {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:

Proposals by User:Example 6

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

Edit-wars and Gaming the System

Note: Most of the diffs were taken from evidence page.

I saw that Qwyrxian commented in his evidence [15] that I have a willingness to game the system (xe advocated getting the page locked so that people give up and leave. I'd say this is very untrue. Rather, I intended to petition an admin to lock the page due to the great deal of disruptive editing and borderline edit-warring going on. This sentiment, ironically, was echoed by Qwyrxian back then [16]:

heck, I even find the comments of some of the editors on what (Bob perceives as) "our side" to be frustrating. It's a difficult environment to work in when even changes of 2 or 3 words are argued over ad nauseum -- Qwyrxian

While my intent was simply to petition an admin to protect the page in a legitimate manner (which I did [17], and I even requested another editor not to engage in edit-wars [18]), a number of editors thought it's a good idea to go after me. First, I got this warning from John Smith accusing me of edit-warring [19] (is that the only way to get a page locked?). Then he continued [20] to accuse me of edit-warring. After putting me through all the crap, he finally did manage to bait me into saying some not very nice things about him [21] and then he started whining about being treated poorly [22]. Tenmei also did not help with matters. Rather, he fanned the flames and endorsed [23] John Smith's motion.

Ironically, these pages were eventually locked for reasons related to their actions and not mine. As it turns out, they edit-warred with some other editors and exhausted Nihonjoe's patience [24]. Then just days later, they'd get another page locked over another edit-war [25].

As if the matter would end (or I would receive any apologies - yeah like that's going to happen), Tenmei asserted that the pages were locked because I had somehow magically manipulated them into edit-warring [26][27].

Food for thought, guys.

And before we forget, here's a friendly reminder: This entry is about accusations of gaming the system, edit-warring, and being nasty - which were all directed at me. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

That was just one example. If you want another example, your defense here, in this section, is another. You made a claim in two places that you should get the page locked--not because there was edit warring at that moment, but because you thought it would make people leave. You said that explicitly in your comment to STSC (and your choice of articles where people should go further points to your intent). This is your standard practice: make a statement that is provocative, offensive, insulting, or otherwise questionable, then come up with an elaborate justification to try to demonstrate that you always meant well and you're always the victim. But you're not--you're the instigator, the cause, the point from which the problem flows. I sincerely believe that a careful examination of your overall editor behavior shows this very conclusively. This is not to say that you don't have strengths (your careful explanation of Google searches was valuable, for instance), but that your negative points far out weigh the benefits you provide, at least with respect to these sets of articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That's rather incorrect. Locking pages does not actually force people to leave. Rather, it renders the article pages impermeable to any changes (including mine) until the protection is lifted. And as I've quoted your younger self back then, you were also quite fed up with my opponents' behaviours too, what caused this change of mind? Oh, and I haven't started with you yet (i.e. the part where you gamed the system with another admin). This is just part of a series to show how several parties here have consistently singling their opponents out for criticisms while being terrible contributors themselves. Your rant about me being the instigator of everything is a show of how unquestionably biased and entrenched you've become. Because, as far as I know, I wasn't the one who caused the arrest of discussions, locking of pages, or the collapse of the mediation. And before you proceed with your self-righteous rants, I'd sincerely suggest you to look at yourself first. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Battleground, Tag-Teaming, and Canvass

I saw that I was accused by Qwyrxian for BATTLEGROUND and Oda Mari for Tag-teaming and CANVASS.

Battleground

To address Qwyrxian's assertion, I would like to show a number of quotes by different editors. In this diff [28] written by Qwyrxian in Feb 4, 2011, he wrote:

I'm not talking about the current problem. I'm talking that every single little change causes either an edit war, a near edit war, or such a massive, overwhelming talk page discussion with both sides pretty much entrenched and non-collaborative. This particular point is just an example. If we don't go into mediation, I can discuss the solution to this particular point, but I don't think anyone is going to like it, and I don't think the current tone on this page is going to allow for a serious consideration of it

While I don't consider myself entrenched, this quote is quite telling of Qwyrxian's own interpretation of events... namely, there is a great deal of stubbornness and an astounding lack of cooperative effort. With that point noted, it's a distinct lack of AGF on his part to accuse me of BATTLEGROUND over diffs where I showed pessimism towards the objectivity of other editors... and again, this is all in a context where he considered parties of either side to be "entrenched and non-collaborative".

Now, this wouldn't be something if I don't show a few examples of "battlegroundness" of other parties:

• [29] - Pro-Chinese editors?
• [30] - Truck load about conspiracies, baiting, etc, etc, you name it
• [31] - An ArbCom statement accused Lvhis of canvassing the support of a Chinese admin; Accused opponents as SPA; Statements like mess began after 2010 Senkaku boat collision incident and was caused by some Chinese editors driven by their nationalism at the incident.
• [32] - ANI opened on Penwhale for being Chinese admin who commits COI
• [33] - ArbCom statement about how editors who dispute [Japanese government possession] too strongly give the impression that they are trying to reclaim the islands on behalf of the government which claims previous ownership.
• And pretty much everything from that previous section about edit-wars where some people went on a wild campaign against some phantom edit-war conspiracy.

Canvass

Next, there's Oda Mari's allegation of CANVASS [34]. The simple answer is that it wasn't deliberate even if there was any. The Oct 7 quotes saw me inviting two experienced editor in zh:WP who had recently edited the page. I did consider the page to be quite biased and would like second opinions from zh:WP editors (whom I had no interactions with) to see if that's the case. As the diffs indicated, I did not invite them to any specific discussion and I explicitly asked them to be objective. If that wasn't enough, I'd also point out that (1) I was one month old in WP at the time of writing and (2) Nobody raised any red flags about this (including Oda Mari). The other "canvassing" comment [35] was not a canvass attempt. It was related to this thread [36] where we were debating about naming conventions. Somehow, Phoenix7777, John Smith's, and Oda Mari decided to make claims about the Chinese languages which Lvhis, STSC, myself, and others considered to be wrong. Since a resolution could not be reached between both sides, I raised the suggestion of asking Project China and zh:WP for advice (because this is a matter about the Chinese language). After declaring my intent for numerous times in the thread without being given any objections, Lvhis and I went ahead with that (which is why these "canvass" posts occurred). On a less related matter: This discussion is part of a side-show of the Mediation that failed and an indirect cause of Mediation failure. Namely, Phoenix7777 made similar complaints about CANVASS, the MedCom defended our actions, and he then attacked the mediator forcing the Mediation to a close.

Tag-Team

Since Oda Mari considers my collaboration with STSC and Lvhis to be tag-teaming, then I should show some examples of talk-page-based collaboration of other people. Reading these diffs is not required. They are just listed for reference:

1. About baiting - [37][38]
2. About baiting - [39]
3. About being Pro-Wikipedia - [40][41][42]
4. About opponents being single purpose accounts who aren't here to build an encyclopedia - [43]
5. Something about ridiculous and collaboration - [44]
6. Something about pro-Chinese editors - [45]
7. and so on ... Here's a link [46] to plow through the rest of Tenmei's contributions in talk pages

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Abuse of Administrative Authority

Lvhis [47] (see "Improper conduct with double standards and gaming the system ruined efforts preventing edit-warring") and I [48] (see "Magog_the_Ogre") raised the issue of possible misconduct on the part of two admins (specifically, Magog the Ogre and Qwyrxian). The context of this matter lies on the fact that he blocked Lvhis over a BRD interruption while exempting Tenmei from the same sanctions. The following are notable red flags associated with this ordeal:

1. Magog the Ogre demonstrated an inability to handle and understand criticisms regarding his decisions. He made it clear that the questioning was getting on his nerves and he forced a closure to the exchange in an unsatisfactory manner. After the matter was brought over to another admin who opined disfavourably towards his administrative decisions, he proclaimed that [I've] done nothing but trolling since you and I have been talking even though this matter constituted the bulk of my recent experiences with him and I was also quite civil during all that for the most part.
2. Qwyrxian took Magog's side and claimed there were flaws in Lvhis and my arguments but had failed to produce the actual refutation despite being repeatedly prompted to. Specifically, I cited the flowchart on BRD and documented how BRD was broken in a step-by-step manner and he was invited to show how that logic was wrong.
3. Qwyrxian appeared to have openly gamed the system. Tenmei declared a wiki-break from the associated article pages just as I started my inquiry into his block exemption. Qwyrxian declared that since Tenmei was on wiki-break, he should not be given a block. Shortly after I stopped pursuing the matter (due to the obvious disinterest of admins to correct the situation), Tenmei returned from his wiki-break and started breaking BRD again.
4. Qwyrxian and Magog the Ogre filed this ArbCom case in response to Tenmei breaking BRD again. They protected the article pages and concluded [49] that multiple users have shown themselves unable to either understand or abide by the [BRD imposition by Magog], even though the far majority of editors respected Magog's rule. Of the two individuals who broke BRD, Lvhis apologized sincerely [50] and had been very compliant with Magog's standard ever since (such as consulting Magog over every step of the BRD [51]). Tenmei, on the other hand, was really the only editor who was not adhering to the rules imposed by Magog. As I've shown already, Magog did not appear very open to critiques and refused to justify his conclusions. By extension, Qwyrxian also appeared to have mishandled the situation by condoning this course of action.

It's possible that I am wrong and that the admins I raised questions about handle matters in a completely fair manner way that I somehow cannot comprehend. But in the event that I am actually correct, then it may be practical to consider whether or not flawed leadership of authority figures are, in fact, very important contributors to the overall problem (in Qwyrxian's case, it'd stretch back to the time before he became an admin).

With everything said, I would like to conclude this remark with the presentation of a classic Chinese idiom "上梁不正下梁歪" [52], which has the following meaning:

"When the higher-ups (or parents) do not set a good example, the subordinates (or children) cannot be expected to behave well."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Just a note that my support of Magog the Ogre's decision to not block Tenmei the first time was solely while wearing my "editor's hat". I have never taken administrative actions with regards to these article or any of the participants, nor would I ever do so. I do believe that Magog the Ogre should have blocked Tenmei the second time, but I don't believe that that makes his decision to protect the article instead in any way "abusive" since the disruption stopped, at least on the article page. If the Committee cares, I can provide my long, detailed explanation of why the first block on Lvhis was proper (based on Magog's terms previously set terms for the article) but the first offense by Tenmei (prior to his alleged wiki-break) did not deserve a block; however, they may prefer to draw their own conclusions on the matter. I will, however, agree with one other thing that Bobthefish2 said in reference to these events--I find Tenmei's swift return from his "wiki-break", and the way he returned (re-inserting clearly non-consensus changes) to be highly questionable and part of Tenmei's greater WP:MPOV problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this does not diminish your role in all this. Magog has clearly erred in his judgment. You could've stood up for what's right, but instead you gamed the system for Tenmei through wiki-lawyering. It appears an advantage of the ArbCom is that you are now expressing a willingness to explain your support for Magog's decision, which is an explanation you refused to provide in the past. Suppose you are to provide such an explanation, I would like you to respond directly to this post [53] and explain why BRD was not broken by Tenmei. I will change my mind on this if you can provide a sufficient explanation for this double standard.

Protecting the article in response to Tenmei breaking the rule is inappropriate and an abuse of administrative privileges because, as far as we know, he was the only person to willfully disregard the rules imposed by Magog the Ogre. The fact that the two of you exaggerated the number of violators (i.e. single instead of multiple) and refused to allow your decisions to be discussed also casts doubt on your professionalism and ethics as administrators. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine.

1. Lvhis made an edit. [54] (Bold)
2. It was reverted by Tenmei [55] (Revert)
3. Discussion ensued on the talk page (Discuss)
4. 3 days later Tenmei made a new edit, different from Lvhis's. [56] (Bold)

In other words, Tenemi's last edit in this sequence is the start of a new BRD cycle. If we follow your logic, it would be impossible for Tenmei to ever edit the article again, until someone else edited the article. That is not now nor has it ever been how BRD works. That interpretation would mean you could use BRD to lock out other editors--the first person to start a BRD cycle would essentially always get to start all of the following, particularly for situations where there are only a small number of editors. Tenmei's edit was 3 days later, and clearly a bold attempt to try to break the stalemate on the section by offering a different solution to the phrasing in the lead. Of course, I reverted Tenmei very shortly thereafter, because his edit was terribly biased, but that still doesn't make it a BRD violation (although, as Elen of the Roads correctly pointed out, BRD was the wrong tool and isn't really meant to be something one can "violate"). Lvhis was blocked earlier (July 22) because Lvhis made a bold edit (fine), it was reverted about 12 hours later (fine), and, only 5 hours after the revert, re-inserted nearly the same text that xe had made earlier that day (not fine). There is a radical difference between their actions. Note, as I said before, that I do think Tenmei's edits on August 12 deserved a block, because they were definitely re-inserting a non-consensus version, when he was allegedly on a break from the articles. I even asked Magog to block Tenmei for it. That xe chose not to is, in my opinion, a mistake, but not abuse of administrative power. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: