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 and this response, 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:

Withdrawn by requester.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) I have returned to the base so the 2 weeks is not necessary. STSC (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Comment by Arbitrators: Comment by parties: Comment by others:

"2010 Senkaku boat collision incident"

This article should be also included on the case. STSC (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I concur. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Enough with the evidence on this page?

I thought the clerk was very kind to let us go beyond 500 words in our evidence, I'm getting a little disturbed by the ever increasing amount of "Evidence" (i.e., difs, more examples, etc.), including that described as "analysis of evidence...are we really supposed to be using this space to just list more and more complaints about each other? I've intentionally tried not to engage in too much back and forth, though I admit being unable to fully resist, but with more and more "data" coming in from some editors, I feel like I should be out scouring for more evidence... Or maybe a better question is, what really do you want us (the parties) to be doing now? I know we're waiting for one Magog the Ogre's evidence; I think a few of the editors are considering making proposals...but what would be most constructive for us? Or is it time for all us (the involved parties) to just wait for questions, etc. (save for those who haven't finished as just mentioned). Qwyrxian (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In reference to AlexandrDmitri's comment below, I'm fine with all of my comments being removed; each of them is in response to something written by another editor (I think Bobthefish2 in each case), so as long as the original points are removed, my response are no longer necessary. I won't remove them now myself, because that will mess up the threading, but they can go along with all of the rest of the section. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure how one can really effectively analyze another's evidence if the said evidence is taken out of context and required a few other diffs to clarify. While it's true that this could be done in the evidence section, this is a pretty big case with many threads involved. If it is forbidden to introduce new diffs in response to new allegations, then wouldn't people be sitting ducks when they run out of diffs to effectively respond (well, unless arbitrators will believe in claims that are unsubstantiated by diffs)?

A possible option would be to treat the reading of diffs presented outside of "Evidence" as optional. After all, I placed the diffs there simply to say "hey, I made this claim and I did not make it up". --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I saw that Magog the Ogre told Arbitrators to look at this subpage of this laced with lots of text and diffs [4]. So I suppose others can also make a subpage with 2234324 words/diffs, create that as a diff, and then circumvent the word/diff count? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Substantially I have only one there for responding Qwyrxian's comment. Another one is just one word. Both of them can be removed along with all of others as Q said for his. I have a thought but I am not sure if it is appropriate, and if it is not just forget it: can this section be moved to "Evidence talk page"? Again, if this is not appropriate, just forget it. I will comply with what the clerk has asked. --Lvhis (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That also works. I'd comply with the clerk's wishes too and I understand the practicality of enforcing a limit on content. However, I hope a little bit more flexibility is allowed. If Magog's model is allowed (i.e. making a subpage of evidence where he stashed lots of diffs/text), that also works, although I suspect that really was gaming the system. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I am disappointed to see that parties have used the Analysis of evidence section below to present additional evidence. I am therefore making a general request that as of 48 hours from this timestamp, this be voluntarily removed and the section be used exclusively to analyse the evidence presented. Past this deadline, inappropriate material will be refactored or removed entirely. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Could we (involved parties) stop?

So, we started with evidence, then came the "commenting on evidence" and making proposals, now we're somewhere between commenting on "commenting on evidence" and commenting on counter-evidence presented in response to arguments against certain proposals.... Couldn't we just stop? Why are we just arguing amongst ourselves? Arbcom has the evidence. They have our proposals. Couldn't we maybe, you know, let them arbitrate? I'm so tired of all of this...of having to dissect/read dissection of every statement and counter-statement and losing track of the big picture. Maybe I can phrase this directly to ArbCom: is there anything more you want from us? Is there anything you want clarified? Is what we are doing now beneficial to you all? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

The proposed decision is being drafted now (by John Vandenberg) and should be posted soon. In the meantime, I think that we arbitrators have received a full measure of the input we need from all the parties or others. Unless one of us asks you a specific question, I don't think there is a need to post anything else here, and certainly not anything that is primarily just bickering at this point. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Why are we just arguing amongst ourselves? a) Because some people are probably trying to avoid sanction by undermining what others have written; and b) it's a continuation of the arguments on the article pages. John Smith's (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

True 'dat. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"some people are probably trying to avoid sanction by undermining what others have writte". Heh. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Stop Oda Mari using Twinkle
Oda Mari has been abusing the use of Twinkle; she must be stopped. STSC (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
See below: proposed ban. STSC (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

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 to the parties

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)

I'm not trying to misrepresent facts...I tend to give Tenmei deference because there really is a language barrier here. Nonetheless, when I see all of the diffs you've provided for Tenmei laid out together, I am starting to come to the opinion that Tenmei has been getting away with somewhat hidden incivility. I do not know how much of it is actually malicious (possibly even none) or how much of it is simply blunt speaking filtered through Tenmei's idiosyncratic style. But I'm willing to grant that, taken as a whole, Tenmei's approach to other editors has crossed the boundary into incivility at times. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Your partial realization of Tenmei's incivility is unfortunately late and it appears you still do not completely comprehend the magnitude of Tenmei's incivility. He "got away with somewhat hidden incivility" (in your own words) possibly because you are too zealous in your misguided crusade against me because this is not the first time I've shown you these diffs. Also, language barrier is not a good excuse for writing posts to descriptively insult other people.

Now that you are at it, I would like you to tell me if you see any battleground mindset and incivility of John Smith and Phoenix in the diffs I've provided. It's a very simple request. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:04, 9 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)

1) no, I will not change my wordage unless you give me a compelling reason to do so beforehand (didn't we already cover this?). So feel free to ask away, but probably not. 2) if you don't tell me what I said wrong, how can I see whether it will change ArbCom's mind? It's probably irrelevant anyway; I doubt they'll revisit our opening statements. 3) What could have averted RFAr to begin with is if a) you had changed your behavior to a different communication style after we asked you the first several dozen times, and b) the absence of Bobthefish2 (who, as I've pointed out elsewhere, is guilty IMO of trolling). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:33, 8 September 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)

@ arbitrator's opening comments

In response to SirFozzie's diff here, David Fuchs' diff here, Jclemens' diff here, Coren's 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)

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)

@ Qwyrxian, Oda Mari, John Smith's, Magog the Ogre

Why or how were the diffs of Bobthefhish2 so effective for so long?

What explains the demonstrated and recurring ability to influence our talk page threads? --Tenmei (talk) 19:29, 10 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)

@ SirFozzie -- The investment in ArbCom processes fails if it only results in punitive remedies -- compare Coren's "down-to-earthness"here. As you know, after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, international attention was narrowly focused on an examination of (a) what went wrong, (b) what could have prevented it, and (c) what can be done to prevent something similar. This involved stepping back a bit to gain perspective. Corollary assessment tools include, e.g.,

(a) Inductive reasoning, such as Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA). Failure modes are any errors or failures in our wiki-process which affect the academic credibility of our articles. Effects analysis refers to studying the consequences of those defects.

(b) Deductive reasoning, such as Fault tree analysis (FTA), which considers the probability of failures or breakdowns in our collaborative editing project.

This need for a constructive, long-term perspective has been expressly "on your plate" since before 2008. Explicitly here, it is "on ArbCom's plate" now. --Tenmei (talk) 16:35, 9 September 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 [5]. 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 [6][7][8]. 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)

QED. A straightforward strike-out is "re-framed" as some kind of "attack". No -- wrong question, misleading dichotomy, etc.

Compare: Qwyrxian adds to the confusion which Bob's "re-framing" contrives. As so-called "evidence", Qwyrxian asserts, "xe often attacks the very people who try to help xem." No, this arrow misses the center of the target.

How can we begin to grasp that we're barking up the wrong tree when we contrive arguably reasonable pigeonholes and a false dilemma at the same time. We all make these kinds of mistake from time to time, but the character of small misjudgments are changed when they are re-formatted as accusations.

Like Bobthefish2 in a range of contexts, whose pattern of thinking Qwyrxian mirrors here, the focused complaint anticipates a binary response -- yes/no, guilty/innocent, culpable/non-culpable, etc. One constructive response is to step back; and on further consideration, perhaps the premises of the proposition need to be tweaked?

WP:Delegitimization as a tactic -- The "spin" of Bobthefish2 above is a confounding distraction which is noteworthy has been effective in other Senkaku Islands contexts. See also Delegitimization in my proposed remedies.

WP:Arguing about arguing -- The diff of Bobthefish2 above is emblematic characteristic of a tactic which has been effective in other Senkaku Islands contexts. See also Arguing about arguing in my proposed remedies. --Tenmei (talk) 17:22, 10 September 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 that 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:

The hyperlinked remedy words in blue require ArbCom's endorsement in this case. The wording is supported by 154 members of the Wikipedia community here. --Tenmei (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Rules and policies as weapons

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The hyperlinked remedy words in blue require ArbCom's endorsement in this case. The wording is supported by 154 members of the Wikipedia community here. --Tenmei (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Vested toxic warriors

3) ArbCom acknowledges that long-term warriors are toxic, not "vested" contributors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The hyperlinked remedy words in blue require ArbCom's endorsement in this case. The wording is supported by 154 members of the Wikipedia community here. --Tenmei (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Marriage of "content" and "conduct"

4) ArbCom acknowledges the "content" and "conduct" are sometimes married, not divorced 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)

@ Newyorkbrad -- Please notice that strike-out removes terms which are not clear in this context. --Tenmei (talk) 02:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The hyperlinked remedy words in blue require ArbCom's endorsement in this case. The wording is supported by 154 members of the Wikipedia community here. --Tenmei (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Curtailing content disputes

5) ArbCom acknowledges that restraing in curtailing 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 encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The hyperlinked remedy words in blue require ArbCom's endorsement in this case. The wording is supported by 154 members of the Wikipedia community here. --Tenmei (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Transparency

6) ArbCom acknowledges that increased transparency in the dispute resolution process enhances the ability of the community to find ways to mitigate future problems before ArbCom is invited to intervene.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The hyperlinked remedy words in blue require ArbCom's endorsement in this case. The wording is supported by 154 members of the Wikipedia community here. --Tenmei (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Reasons and justification

7) ArbCom acknowledges a burden to to explain decisions in better detail -- beyond a simple "aye/nay" -- and to expose ArbCom's reasoning and justification. This is necessary because the community benefits from understanding why ArbCom rules as it does.

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:

The hyperlinked remedy words in blue require ArbCom's endorsement in this case. The wording is supported by 154 members of the Wikipedia community here. --Tenmei (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

I also concur with discretionary sanctions. In fact, I'd like to ask--is there any editor or uninvolved party who thinks discretionary sanctions would be a bad idea? I, for one, believe that this is the absolute minimum possible remedy for these articles and the editors involved. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Delegitimization as a tactic

9) ArbCom acknowledges and deprecates edits which are designed to "delegitimize" and delegitimization as a tactic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

An important lesson learned the hard way -- for me, perhaps the most starkly brilliant breakthrough -- in this ArbCom case is a verb Magog introduced in evidence about Bobthefish2 here. This verb and what Magog says it means are useful in contexts beyond the ambit of this case:

Notably, before the event even occurred, I'd already been expecting for Bob to pick a fight sooner or later in an attempt to delegitimize me. I was proven magnificently correct. It's difficult to believe it was an organic thought process (and not an opportunity to pick a fight) given how quickly it happened.

The term "WP:Delegitimization as a tactic" needs to be re-stated and underscored. Magog's conceptual insight needs to embraced.

According to the evidence adduced in this case, the individual and cumulative contributions of Bobthefish2 are notable. His ability to affect the development of our articles and talk pages is demonstrated. In the context Magog suggests, there are follow-up questions. A review of Bob's edit history is important if our project is to mitigate a repetition of similar tactics.

• If Bob's delegitimization is acknowledged as an effective tactic, when was that? why did it succeed? how did it work?
• If there were recurring or corollary tactics, what combination of factors were causal or encouraging? what could have deflected this tactic?

If Magog's analysis and conclusions are credited, can we identify missed opportunities to "nip it in the bud"? How can we turn this into a lesson learned the hard way? --Tenmei (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Now, this seems like a "delegitimzation tactic"... such as using ambiguous contribution statistics to argue another user being "not here to edit build encyclopedia". --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Arguing about arguing

10) ArbCom acknowledges and deprecates edits which are "arguing about arguing".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"Arguing about arguing" is an important phrase Magog introduced in evidence about Bobthefish2 here. This phrase is useful in contexts beyond the ambit of this case. Magog's use of this phrase should be highlighted, e.g.,

Over 50% of Bob's contributions are to User talk or Wikipedia (i.e., pages where he's arguing about arguing). Currently, under 7% of his contributions are to articles.

The term or the idea "WP:Arguing about arguing" needs to be re-stated and underscored. Magog's conceptual insight needs to be added to the list of our shared wiki-jargon or shorthand explanations. --Tenmei (talk) 16:49, 10 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 [9], [10], [11], and [12]? 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)

Well, then we have a problem don't we? It appears some people have a pretty biased interpretation of what's a personal attack based on who authored the messages. I'd advise the arbitrators to take a look at this. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:47, 5 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)

Tenmei, however you put it across, the fact it's very hard to understand what you're getting at does make it hard to reach consensus on how to make edits, as much as other users' bad behaviour does. It's your call. You can carry on writing far too much, in far too convoluted a way and possibly get topic-banned, or you can decide to be more concise. Do you actually understand this point? "Yes" or "no" will do, thanks. John Smith's (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian's proposal to have me and Bobthefish2 indefinitely topic banned is absolutely disgraceful. That would be an insult to the Wikipedia Project if he thinks he can use this procedure to silent the opposition to his point of view on the article. STSC (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to silence the opposition--if I were, I would have called for a topic ban of Lvhis, which I didn't, since I don't think xe's done anything to warrant a topic ban. I'm trying to get the people who are disrupting the process to stop their disruption. As I mentioned elsewhere on this page, I am not certain a topic ban for you (STSC) is actually necessary; you have written a lot of very extreme statements on the article talk pages, but at least you are rarely disruptive on the actual articles. I'd personally be comfortable with no topic ban for you so long as you agree to stop making attacks on other editors. Bobthefish2, though, despite the good things he has brought to the discussion, is, on the whole, a net negative whose only goal is to win through attrition and who simply doesn't understand/accept that civility is not an option.

Now, having said that, I took a look back at some of the diffs that Bobthefish2 presented here and elsewhere, and I have slightly revised my opinion about Tenmei. Before, I didn't want to attribute too much of his attitude to malice, but some of those diffs appear to be more than just hyperbole, and do cross over into the category of incivility (and possibly personal attacks, though the line is subtle). Mind you, some of the attacks are correct (Bobthefish2 is deceptive, is toxic, etc.), but still, the problem should have been handled through other channels. Of course, this doesn't change my recommendation at all--Tenmei still needs to be topic banned from these articles, and the (possible) attacks don't excuse a long-term strategy of misbehavior by Bobthefish2, and he still needs to be topic banned. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course you are; to destroy all the opposition dose not look good on your ridiculous proposal, does it? I made comments on other editors' behavior and they are not personal attacks. And please don't speak as if you're in such a high authority because you're just another editor on this case. STSC (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This thread does reveal some of the systemic problems we have with this current lineup of editors. For example, it does appear there is a cabal of editors whom, despite the obviously massive violations by Tenmei, advocated leniency for him while advocating indefinite blocks for their opponents who were not anymore BATTLEGROUND or UNCIVIL as this cabal.

Another thing that became more obvious is that some people have a selective interpretation of what's a personal attack and what's not presumably depending on who's involved. For instance [13], Oda Mari didn't consider it was offensive to tell people to "put up or shut up" or that describing some editor as another's shill in a cups and balls game.

Finally, Q has again pressed his propaganda of this so-called "long-term strategy of misbehaviour" that was supposedly adopted by me. He also, at various times, accused me of not having an intent to contribute to Wikipedia and tried to derive some sort of sinister motives out of my actions. I don't think admins should be running smear campaigns on their opponents on a matter. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

@John Smith's: Tenmei has already had several mentors, as a result of his last encounter with Arbcom. They didn't help. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei#Outside view by Nick-D. Tenmei has himself said that not only is his type of editing acceptable, it's good and necessary. Since Tenmei flat out refuses to change his writing style, I don't see what else we can do (apart from the very narrow hope that a native language mentor would somehow change things) Just to provide one more example, the clerk for this case removed Tenmei's graphs from his evidence, per an unpublished rule that says that arbitrators don't want graphics in arbitration cases. Of course, it's not Tenmei's fault that he didn't know this rule. What is his fault is the massive thread he's posted on the clerk's page insisting that this case is an exception and that the clerk "[p]lease do whatever you need to do so that graphics can be posted on the evidence and workshop pages" (see [User talk:AlexandrDmitri#Graphics]). I still don't know whether Tenmei simply simply doesn't get it or is just so certain that xe is right that everyone must bend to his will. It doesn't matter, because the disruption is real and must be stopped. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian, from your evidence, one of the main reason you proposed to have user STSC "indefinitely topic banned from articles .." is, upon your interpretation, "he will never accept the name Senkaku, no matter how many times consensus favors it; this refusal to accept consensus is antithetical to collaborative editing." Please be aware right there in the evidence page, user Oda Mari blatantly expressed "I just don't like it /any name but Senkaku" , which can be interpreted as "She will never accept the name other than Senkaku, no matter if consensus favors it; this refusal to accept consensus is antithetical to collaborative editing." Why did not you propose to have her banned? Hope this is not one more example that you use double standards to treat users/editors upon if their opinions favors yours rather than upon their behaviors favor the WP policies and guidelines. --Lvhis (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misreading her comment, but when I read the rest of her section, I read that title as short for "Other people say that they want any name other than Senkaku, and sometimes the reason for that is that they 'just don't like' Senkaku." However, I could be wrong, and there is an easy way to check--I'll ask Oda Mari:

Oda Mari, if a widely publicized and participated in discussion led to a clear consensus that the name Senkaku is not the most appropriate name per our policies and guidelines, would you accept that consensus and decline to raise the issue again until significant time has passed and significant new evidence is available? If consensus found that "Pinnacle Islands" was the most appropriate name, would you insist upon a "POV-title" tag being placed on the article? Just so that she doesn't miss this, I'm going to leave a note on Oda Mari's talk page specifically requesting a response to this comment.

Note that I asked the same question to STSC multiple times, and, to this point, xe has refused to make such a commitment. Instead xe merely uses this as a pretext to claim I think I'm "God" and that I have an "extreme egocentric mentality". Also, I've said many times that if STSC would make such a commitment (to abide by consensus and behave civilly), I would consider a topic ban completely unnecessary (with the obvious caveat that if future behavior didn't match such a promise, the issue would have to be revisited). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Even disregarding all of this, Qwyrxian's ban proposal of STSC is quite telling anyway... I mean, he didn't even try to resolve the problem with STSC. Rather, he simply advocated sanctions for a party who participated infrequently. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I think Oda Mari's title meant: "I just don't like it" OR "Any name but Senkaku". In that case, I don't think the title is that problematic. However, the content is pretty telling of a battleground mentality, let me quote it:

"When I saw the POV tag, I asked myself "Who think it's biased?". North and South America, Europe, Africa, Middle East…most people are indifferent or don’t think it biased. My answer was Chinese, Taiwanese, Overseas Chinese, and CPOV supporters. I asked Penwhale the question. [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] Conclusion: Only Chinese and Taiwanese think Senkaku biased. Those who say the SI is a biased name are CPOV pushers, abusing NPOV policy. Additionally, when I saw this, I thought "Any name will do for them but the single use of Senkaku"."

That's the type of things I've been quite furiously condemned on by our friend Qwyrxian. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I would never have gone out of my way to request a topic ban of STSC. I only did it because, while looking through the evidence from the last couple of years, I noticed a long term pattern from STSC with no indication that the attitude was improving. My job (as an involved party) was to look at the situation from my perspective and try to recommend what needs to be done to stop the overall disruption at these articles. My analysis of the evidence was that, though STSC does not edit often, overall, xyr approach has not been in the proper, collegial, consensus-building Wikipedia model. Thus, the proposal for a topic ban. And, one last time, since I really feel like no one has heard me: all STSC has to do, in my opinion, to rectify this is to simply agree to abide by consensus, and to stop using battleground language in discussions. In a certain sense this isn't even really necessary, because such an "agreement" will become mandatory, because I am 90+% certain that Arbcom will put these articles under general sanctions, which will make such compliance mandatory for everyone. But STSC's unwillingness to give even that tiny bit of assurance that xe really is a collegial editor sure seems to me like further evidence that xe can't "play nice" with regards to this topic. I never tried to resolve the problem with STSC because it wasn't until I looked at the "big picture" (i.e., after arbitration started) that I even saw that there was a problem. This isn't about silencing anyone (that's why I want Lvhis and Penwhale to keep editing on the topic despite the fact that I think they're probably wrong about the proper title) or attacking anyone. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Writing a wall of text doesn't help explain your action. Fact is neither you nor anyone else had tried to resolve whatever problem you found in STSC. The first thing you've ever done about it is to advise an indefinite ban. Based on my reading of the ANI disputes, this is a first I've seen from administrators. Even though I generally frown upon conspiracy theories, I agree with STSC that you are apparently attempting to use this ArbCom to gain an advantage on a content dispute by getting rid some of your principle opponents. I mean, I have yet to see you criticizing the behaviour of people on "your side" despite the overwhelming evidence of incivility, battleground mentality, and personal attacks that are provided. Even for Tenmei, you tried to excuse him of his responsibilities through some phony language barrier excuse.

I am very sincerely sorry about not being able to have faith in your impartiality, since you are obviously pursuing an extremely biased line of prosecution. Now, unless you have something new to say, can we get back to analyzing Oda Mari' paragraph? Do you think it is indicative of a highly combative mentality? Yes or no? Thanks. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I need to see Oda Mari's response to my questions--they are what matter here. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

@Lvhis. You are free to think. But you cannot force your personal interpretation/value/thought on other people. If you think I'm a non-constructive, biased editor, you can make a proposal on my ban. Accusing other editor that he doesn't make a proposal on my ban is inappropriate and way out of line.
@Qwyrxian. No for the the inquisition. Oda Mari (talk) 07:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

If Oda Mari is also unwilling to abide by consensus, and is officially stating that fact, then I must sadly recommend a topic ban there as well. This is really a very simple concept: anyone who says "this is the right position, and no matter what the community says I will never accept it and will fight to keep it my way" is POV-pushing. I don't understand why this is so hard, because it's such a fundamental part of our editing on Wikipedia: everyone is welcome to state their position, and defend it extensively and with great care, but ultimately, in the end, we work by consensus. We have to--it's the only way to handle disputes (without going the Citizendium "experts decide" route). I leave it to the Committee to judge whether general sanctions will be enough to handle both STSC and Oda Mari, or whether they need to be pre-emptively banned. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian. You must remember people do not react as you expected. Your questions to me were the result of the accusation by Lvhis. It seemed to me the purpose of your questions were for your self-defence. That is the reason I refused to answer. If you asked the questions without background, I'd have answered them. BTW, I've never said that I would refuse consensus and in fact I've never refused consensus. Practically speaking, editors cannot refuse consensus when there is a vote. But as far as I remember there has been no consensus on Senkaku related issues for 6 months or more. Additionally, you must remember this too. Everybody has a point of vie. Qwyrxian, sometimes I think you are trying to be fair too much, losing your own way. Oda Mari (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he is using this as his self-defense, as I implied on your talk page. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

In the "General discussion" section below, see Prevention is better than cure. --Tenmei (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposals by Oda Mari

Proposed remedies

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

outdated

====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 [14]: 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 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) 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 Everyone involved in recent edit-warring are admonished for edit-warring - Since these actions prevented progress Tenmei, John Smith, and Qwyrxian are admonished for false edit-war/GAME accusations against me - Since these misguided campaigns were particularly slanderous Magog the Ogre and Qwyrxian are sanctioned for misconduct as administrators - For everything I said here [15] Everyone involved is advised to take a 3-month wiki-break from the articles of concern to cool-off 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). This is outdated. I will propose something different in the near future. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Do not use SPA or contribution statistics as a means to blindly deride/discredit other users

It has come to my attention that several parties (i.e. Magog the Ogre, Oda Mari, and Tenmei) attempted to use these attributes to discredit other parties. While it may seem to be the norm for well-establish editors to devote themselves to a wide range of topics, it is important to note that many editors have a more casual interest in the project under normal circumstances (barring disputes such as this, where activity may spike).

Also, it is inappropriate to use a ratio of # of article edits vs. # of talk page edits, to evaluate the overall contribution of an editor. Both content management and content evaluation are vital aspects of a project.

Proposed findings of fact

1. Oda Mari's comment on SPA's - [16]
2. Another implied SPA accusation by Oda Mari in her proposal on this page - [17]
3. Last sentence of Magog's comment about me - [18]
4. This diff from my evidence regarding Tenmei's comment on SPA - [19]

Proposed remedies

Do not use ambiguous statistics of a user's contribution history to draw conclusions on his motives, credibility, and overall contributions to Wikipedia.

Comments

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The commentary list at Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia#Review behavior as a whole helps us to recognize the edit history of Bobthefhis2 for what it is. --Tenmei (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This is exactly the kind of attitude I am referring to. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

2. Factors that resulted in the collapse of discussions

It is important to note that every major discussion that took place regarding Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute collapsed due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT of certain parties that are actively in favour of the current article names. Their directed accusations of incivility and battleground mentality committed by opposing parties are largely hypocritical and are distractive devices employed to selectively undermine opposing voices and to mask the true extent of their tendentious editing.

Proposed findings of fact

1. Edit-wars that caused page protection - [20]
2. Battleground mentality has been a global problem that is not localized to a few parties - [21]
3. Other fruitless discussions that went nowhere because of IDONTLIKEIT as well as unnecessary ANI's opened against good faith individuals [22]

Proposed remedies

Before deciding on sanctions, bear in mind that incivility is a mere pretext of certain vested parties to advocate indefinite bans on their opponents.

Comments

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3. De-sysop Magog the Ogre

Remove the administrative status of Magog the Ogre.

Proposed findings of fact

1. [23]
2. [24]

Proposed remedies

Remove the administrative status of Magog the Ogre.

Comments

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by 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 mainly propose some principles rather than merely 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 [25], 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)

Bob, as I explained here, when you and other editors discussed or argued whether the interpretation of some RS on other (a primary) RS was right or wrong, or neutral enough, that is not Original research. You were discussing the primary RS (here your example is a Chinese article) instead of creating some point purely belongs your own original research. What I proposed above is regarding pure and clear-cut Original research like insisting "the Japanese name is the real English name" even opposed by given several RSs in line with neutrality. --Lvhis (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I may have misunderstood your proposal. I will strike out my response for now. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:55, 16 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)

@Oda Mari, you should not treat your own opinion as a community consensus. As demonstrated as an example in the guideline WP:NCGN#Multiple local names, the name "Liancourt Rocks" has been taken as a community consensus and the result that the dispute has been solved. Your behavior sticking to an unsupportable original research regarding the names of the geographic entity of the page in question in current Arbitration may make you have more chance to fall in the category of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Lvhis (talk) 05:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

@Lvhis. FYI.The description of LR on the NCGN page is changed now. I pointed out it was wrong on the talk page. No objection and a user corrected it and I clarified it more. Oda Mari (talk) 06:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that NPOV should be applied on all pages. I do not believe that this means that the result on all pages will be the same. For example, Sea of Japan is never going to move to some sort of theoretical "neutral" name just because Korea happens to argue that the name is biased. To apply NPOV, we must consider what is actually the English name. That's why we use the term Boston massacre, even though the term is obviously "not neutral". Now, is "Senkaku Islands" the correct, neutral name for this article? I think so, but I'm not sure, and I feel that part of the reason we can't figure it out is because disruptive editing is preventing collegial discussions. Thus, the need for this RfAr--first we fix the behavioral problems, then we get back to the content issues. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Oda Mari is barking up the wrong tree. While Lvhis contends that there are similarities to the Liancourt Rocks issue, he did not say the circumstances are completely identical. Unless I am misunderstanding something, I don't think there is any IDIDNOTHEARTHAT going on. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

All parties/editors should obey the policy WP:CIVIL

3) The problem of some editors sometimes did not behave in line with WP:CIVIL has occurred in most, if not every, of cases submitted for Arbitration. My proposal about this is nothing new and is very simple: we just follow what the policy WP:CIVIL has stated.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Users with Administrative Authority involved in these pages

4) Users with administrative authority for managing such hot pages should restrictively obey the policy WP:SYSOP, of which "Expectations of adminship" should be more emphasized. As stated in "Care and judgement" of that policy and lessons in this case as raised in my evidence, unitary standard should be applied with fairness and consistency to enforce any sanctions to prevent edit-warring. This is the way that can keep such sanction effective, and also keep the administrative authority being real neutral. Those users authorized with adminship but have been involved in the dispute as regular users are still expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful manner as stated in the parts "Administrator conduct" and "Accountability" of that policy, including obeying the policies mentioned above Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and WP:CIVIL.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is a very important principle to maintain community's confidence in the administrators. STSC (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Involved parties violated Wikipedia important policies NOR, SOURCE, and NPOV to prevent consensus

1) Involved parties violated Wikipedia important policies WP:NOR, WP:SOURCE, and WP:NPOV using Original Research to prevent consensus in discussion for editing a section of the page Senkaku Islands dispute, and potentially to prevent consensus in naming dispute, as opposing that NPOV policy and relative guideline should be applied on articles with consistency. [26][27] --Lvhis (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The involved parties, user Qwyrxian and user Oda Mari here, using Original Research refused to reach consensus, or opposed the previous consensus, in edit of the Lead Section of the page Senkaku Islands dispute acting as WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to drag the discussion endless. [28][29] --Lvhis (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The substance of this case is more similar to that of Liancourt Rocks Case

2) The substance of this case is more similar to that of Liancourt Rocks Case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If so it is, the principle stated in guideline WP:NCGN#Multiple local names along with the fundamental policy WP:NPOV should be applied. Some user mentioned "Kuril Islands". Unlike this case and Liancourt Rocks, the geographical entity Kuril Islands does not have English name originated from English language or European/American language, and as user STSC pointed out [30], the name "Kuril Islands" is originated from the language of local original inhabitants the Ainu people who have been living in both Kuril Islands and Hokaido of Japan. --Lvhis (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

POV-title tag was ever removed by involved parties when dispute and discussion was ongoing

3) {{POV-title}} tag was ever removed for several occasions by involved parties when discussion was still ongoing and dispute was not yet resolved. [31]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per Template:POV#When to_use/When to remove, the norm Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, the guideline Wikipedia:POV Cleanup, and the policy WP:NPOV, the POV-title tag should be used for the page in question in this Arbitration case and for its main related pages when the discussion is still ongoing, dispute has not been resolved, and consensus has not been reached. Removing this tag needs consensus and must not get in a revert war. If such revert/edit war has happened when discussion is still ongoing and dispute has not been resolved, the users removing the tag should be the main faulty parties and have to bear main/major responsibilities. --Lvhis (talk) 05:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Those editors opposing the tag do not seem to know the actual function of the clean-up tag and have caused so much disruption. STSC (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Involved parties sometimes did not behave in line with WP:CIVIL

4) Involved parties sometimes did not behave in line with WP:CIVIL.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Involved parties with Administrative Authority violated certain Wikipedia policies

5) Some involved party with Administrative authority has violated Wikipedia policy "Care and judgement" and "Accountability" of WP:SYSOP when using such authority to manage the page in question [32][33]. Some involved party with Administrative authority not directly using this authority and only being involved in the pages in question as regular user/editor has violated Wikipedia policy Administrator conduct besides violated Wikipedia policies WP:NOR, WP:SOURCE, and WP:NPOV as raised in "Proposed findings of fact 4.5.2.1" above [34][35][36][37].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Such violation directly resulted in failure of preventing edit-warring and failure of possible benign resolution of disputes so as to have this case entering this Arbitration. The involved parties here are user Qwyrxian and user Magog the Ogre. The improper action of Magog was at least in part resulted from Qwyrxian's improper action. --Lvhis (talk) 05:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC) --Lvhis (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The administrators' mentality and conduct should be carefully examined for their suitability to police the community. STSC (talk) 04:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian is an active enabler of Magog's mis-conduct as an administrator. He is also an enabler of edit-war and tendentious editing committed by several other parties through passive tolerance and an active unwillingness to acknowledge these on-going activities. See sections [38] and [39] and [40]) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

An involved party played a pronounced negative role in edit and discussion

6) An involved party played a pronounced negative role in edit and discussion of the pages in question.

As in evidence raised from most of involved parties, this party is user Tenmei [41][42][43][44], whose repeatedly deliberate violation of a sanction set up by admin was the blasting fuse of exposing the admin's defect and dragging the case to the Arbitration [45][46]. --Lvhis (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

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.

Parties violating "proposed principle 4.5.1.1 and 4.5.1.2" are banned for a period of one year from Senkaku Islands topics

1) User Qwyrxian and User Oda Mari are banned for a period of one year from Senkaku Islands topics, broadly defined, and may appeal this decision to the committee no earlier than one year from the time sanctions are imposed. The justification for this proposed remedy is as stated in "Proposed findings of fact 4.5.2.1".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Parties violating "proposed principle 4.5.1.3" are admonished for incivility

2) Parties who were proved having violated "proposed principle 4.5.1.3" are admonished for incivility. If any such incivility reoccurs from now on, the perpetrating party or parties will be banned for a period of 6 months from Senkaku Islands topics, broadly defined, and may appeal this decision to the committee no earlier than 6 months from the time sanctions are imposed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

User Tenmei is banned for a period of one year from Senkaku Islands topics

3) User Tenmei is banned for a period of one year from Senkaku Islands topics, broadly defined, and may appeal this decision to the committee no earlier than one year from the time sanctions are imposed. The justification for this proposed remedy is as stated in "Proposed findings of fact 4.5.2.6".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

User Qwyrxian is desysopped due to violation of "proposed principle 4.5.1.4, 4.5.1.1, and 4.5.1.2"

4) User Qwyrxian is desysopped due to violation of "proposed principle 4.5.1.4", "proposed princeple 4.5.1.1", and "proposed princeple 4.5.1.2". The justification for this proposed remedy is as stated in "Proposed findings of fact 4.5.2.5" and "Proposed findings of fact 4.5.2.1".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

The administrative authority of User Magog_the_Ogre is banned from Senkaku Islands topics for a period of one year

5) Due to violation of "proposed principle 4.5.1.4", the administrative authority of User Magog_the_Ogre is banned for a period of one year from Senkaku Islands topics, broadly defined, and may appeal this decision to the committee no earlier than one year from the time sanction are imposed. The privilege of regular user/editor for the topics in question for User Magog_the_Ogre is not banned. The administrative authority of User Magog_the_Ogre for Wikipedia topics other than the topics in question here is not affected. The justification for this proposed remedy is as stated in "Proposed findings of fact 4.5.2.5".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Magog's misconduct goes far beyond that. See [47] and [48].

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

The topic of Senkaku Islands, broadly defined, is placed under discretionary sanctions

1) Per "Proposed principle 4.5.1.2", the topic of Senkaku Islands, broadly defined, is placed under discretionary sanctions, like what for the precedent Liancourt Rocks case. Similar to "Liancourt Rocks case" as justified in "Proposed findings of fact 4.5.2.2", consensus should be forced to reach among involved parties upon the "proposed principle 4.5.1.2" as the final step for Dispute Resolution for this case.

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: STSC

Proposed principles

Neutrality must be maintained in the articles

1) Wikipedia must not let any editor use this arbitration process to silent other editors (namely STSC, Bobthefish2 and Lvhis) who honestly try to maintain neutrality in the articles which have been unbalanced and biased.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Moved to case talkpage by clerk. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Review the appointment of adminship

The mentality and behaviour of the administrators should be thoroughly examined for their suitability as administrator. This is to prevent any likelihood of disputes with the editors in the future. STSC (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

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.

Removal of adminship from Qwyrxian

1) Qwyrxian's statement, "Even though STSC disputes my interpretation, I still believe this statement ("the title with the Japanese name is never NPOV as long as Japan is one of the participants in the territorial dispute") implies he will never accept the name Senkaku, no matter how many times consensus favors it; this refusal to accept consensus is antithetical to collaborative editing."

It is absolutely ridiculous by any standard. Does he think he is God deciding everything according to his "interpretation"? He is just violating other people's mind. Wikipedia cannot have someone with this kind of extreme egocentric mentality to be a fair administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See above. All judgment is interpretation, period. And I would humbly submit that desysoping me is far beyond the scope of this Arbitration, since I have never once used my tools with respect to these articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Other editors would not have confidence in you being an admin; that's why you should be removed from adminship. STSC (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Theoretically, it doesn't take an actual abuse of administrative tool to disqualify an administrator. All it should take is a few instances of serious misconducts as a user. Admittedly, I take my standards from the outside world where administrators are expected to be close to perfect (at least in a professional forums/projects). Since administrators are practically tenured for life in Wikipedia, I wouldn't be surprised if admins get a free pass for whatever they do. Speaking of which, I still haven't had the time to really muster any substantial effort to deal with Magog's evidence. I thought what he wrote is a pretty indicative that he's not mentally suited to be an admin. But again, I wouldn't be surprised if he gets away with everything he said (along with all the lies, insults, anger, pettiness, etc). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I might point out that Q was adminned by the community in the midst of this dispute, who was well aware of his conduct. This is an absolutely terrible idea (I'm surprised it's even being proposed) - he didn't even use his admin tools nor one time invoke his admin authority to imply he was in higher standing than any other editors (not to mention that he acted blamelessly otherwise - though there is no point in arguing this as Bob and STSC surely see it differently: it will be up for ArbCom to decide). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

A policeman does not need to misuse his authority and devices to be fired. All he needs to do is to show he cannot be trusted with them. But yes, the arbitrators have to decide whether or not Qwyrxian's show of judgment is what would expected of an administrator. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, I've just found out that at least some members of Arbcom do hold the principle that admins can be de-sysoped even if they haven't misused their admin tools (see Wikipedia Talk:Requests for adminship#New standard for de-admining. So that part of my objection was unfounded. Of course, I still don't think I did anything that would even come close to justifying removal of the mop, but just thought I should update that part of my point was wrong. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Making disproportionate/unbalanced accusations, battleground mentality, launching smear campaigns on other people, gaming the system, harassing other users... But still, I suppose that's not as bad as what Magog did. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to add one small thing here, then I'm probably done with all of this evidence, counter-evidence, proposals, etc. until outside members start getting involved. While Feezo really isn't allowed to comment here in detail because of the privileged nature of mediation and his role in that mediation, I think it is worth pointing out his support vote on my RfA which says: "I.... was consistently impressed by [Qwyrxian's] patience, evenhandedness, writing skills, and desire to reach genuine consensus during a period of intense cultural conflict. He was in many ways almost a co-mediator, and I heartily endorse him for adminship." I believe that that speaks fairly strongly for my conduct on these pages. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The assessment of an individual's behaviour should be based on relevant evidence and not based on his prior contributions in other circumstances. Otherwise, every misbehaving administrators can simply cite the very strong receptions they had in their successful RfA and be given free passes to occasional acts of misconduct. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Except that the behavior STSC is criticizing for is the same behavior that cause Feezo to support my RfA. That is, it's the same contributions. Also, I'm trying to provide the perspective of another editor who is well-familiar with this debate, but who can't actually talk here directly. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance, since much of the complaints directed at you occurred after your RfA. But if you prefer, you are free to ask the ArbCom to look at the 100+ support votes in your RfA instead of the evidence presented against you. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian, had that Mediation ended up with success, your "almost a co-mediator" role would have definitely credited you with positive points. But as matter of fact that the Mediation actually failed, at least from my point of view as expressed in my Oppose #5 in you RfA, the role you played there can give you negative points also. While both opinions can be subjective, the best outcome in line with objectivity may be zero points creditable for you to cite that particular support vote. May I repeat this: I really had ignited a brilliant hope that you could improve yourself and help to solve this dispute, right after your RfA when I read your "thanks" message in my talk page [49][50]. Unfortunately what the fact we got is the situation became malignant particularly after your return from your "wiki topic break", and we have had to be here the Arbitration procedure. Sigh. --Lvhis (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian was just desperately trying to use Feezo's previous statement to boost his standing in the arbitration. (See below under General discussion) STSC (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Banning Oda Mari from using Twinkle

2) Her contributions record has shown that she has been trigger-happy with the Twinkle and she repeatedly used TW to revert good-faith edits in the articles without a valid reason.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think this really belongs to the overall issue of edit-warring. Banning a user from using TW doesn't prevent bad-faith reverts. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Oda Mari didn't abuse Twinkle. It's only abuse if the revert button is used without additional comment. The problem, if anything, like Bob says, is edit warring. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

0RR on Oda Mari

3) She obviously has very little interest in actually editing the English articles apart from just reverting any edit which is not to her liking. STSC (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

0RR is not a helpful proposal and there is nothing wrong with her string of reverts unless there is reason to believe they are wrong. However, her participation in edit-wars should be mentioned. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

<redacted by clerk> --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Putting POV-title tag and POV tag on the articles

4) These clean-up tags should be in place to invite new inputs from other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Full protection of the articles

5) The cooling-off period should continue until the dispute of the articles' title is resolved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Total ban on Tenmei from Wikipedia

6) I once described Tenmei's style of writing like a badly-programmed humanoid. Wikipedia is certainly not a platform for someone who likes to show off the art of obscurity. A total ban would make Tenmei appreciate the editing privileges and hopefully reform himself/herself.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by neutral administrators

1) Any enforcement action should only be carried out by administrators who are not involved in this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Magog the Ogre

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Tenmei's pattern of speech has been disruptive

1) Tenmei's pattern of speech has been disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Bobthefish2 has engaged in a pattern of trolling

2) Bobthefish2 has engaged in a pattern of trolling in order to gain a hand up in the dispute. His edits have been primarily geared toward trolling.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• A lot of the examples provided by Magog in his evidence are flimsy. Much of them are about the use of smileys and making mildly sarcastic comments. While I have made a few impolite statements in the past, it's rather disproportionately mild compared to many of the personal attacks committed by other people quoted in my evidence. The fact that Magog dismissed my inquiry of his misconduct as an administrator is quite worrisome, especially when I have made a very strong case about my position. Rather than acknowledging the mistake, he called me a troll, a liar, an edit-warring person, and all sorts of nasty stuff. Additionally, he is inaccurate in his claim that I contested Lvhis' BRD-induced block, as I've never ever done that.

I think especial attention should be paid to this diff [51], which is a sub-page of his user-space that he offered as his current set of evidence. Barring the inaccuracies in his explanation, his overall attitude is immature and barbaric. The fact that he'd advocate an indefinite ban and other harsh measures on me largely in response to this recent dispute and other recent interactions is concerning. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• "... in order to gain a hand up in the dispute ...." In this section, I have no comment about Magog's words except for a phrase which needs further investigation. Magog's word choice fails to be sufficiently specific.

• If Magog is describing the edits of Bobthefish2 as both strategic and tactical, then that needs to be made clearer. If not, why not?

• If Magog's phrase is an acknowledgment that Bob's diffs are pragmatic, incremental steps in affecting the content of articles about the Senkaku Islands, then that needs to be made plainer. If not, why not?

Magog's phrase omits an assessment of the effectiveness of Bobthefish2 and the likelihood that this strategic, tactical, pragmatic, incremental pattern will be recurring and effective in the future. --Tenmei (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose this is yet another post about how I am a very sinister and manipulative person who has a very long term strategy to control the contents of the page and that everyone else is all innocent victims of my evil schemes... --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The search for As an antidote or anti-tactic which mitigates the "spin" of the diff above is on-going. , we need to evaluate the likelihood that similar patterns will be recurring and effective in the future. --Tenmei (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

McCarthyism --Bobthefish2 (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

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.

User:Bobthefish2 is indefintely banned

1) User:Bobthefish2 is indefintiely banned, and may appeal this decision to the committee no earlier than one year from the time sanctions are imposed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• No reason to goof around about this. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• See comments above: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku_Islands/Workshop#Bobthefish2_has_engaged_in_a_pattern_of_trolling --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The check-off list at WP:Not being here to build an encyclopedia helps us to recognize the edit history of Bobthefish2 for what it is. --Tenmei (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User:Bobthefish2 is banned for a period of one year

2) User:Bobthefish2 is banned for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Definitely a second preference to #2. I don't see Bob reforming, no matter what. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User:Bobthefish2 is banned indefinitely from Senkaku Islands topics

3) User:Bobthefish2 is 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

To clarify my submission #2 above. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User:Lvhis is banned for a period of one year from Senkaku Islands topics

4) User:Lvhis is banned for a period of one year from articles relating to Senkaku Islands, broadly defined, and may appeal this decision to the committee no earlier than six month from the time sanctions are imposed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• The fact that Magog proposed to block Lvhis is quite strange, since Lvhis is one of the most polite and rule-following individual among all the involved parties. This motion sounds more like a retaliatory response to his critiques about Magog misconducts than anything else. See what I wrote in another section in this page: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku_Islands/Workshop#Bobthefish2_has_engaged_in_a_pattern_of_trolling. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. As I wrote in my remedies, he has been concentrating on Senkaku related articles/talks too much and considering his IDIDN'THEARTHAT tendency, he should be, at least for one year, indf. topic banned. Indef. topic ban may be lifted if he would contribute constructively enough on other articles and talks. He should show the committee and other editors that he is a constructive editor. Oda Mari (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I have not yet read over your dispute with Lvhis over the Liancourt Rocks issue, but if we want to get into tendentious editing and IDIDNTHEARTHAT, then maybe we should start analyzing the roles of various some of the past disputes:

• The dubious translation of Remin Ribao article
• CANVASS accusations over invitations to zh:WP and Project China regarding a topic on Chinese language
• Whether or not Taiwanese people can be classified as Chinese people

After all, I do not think Lvhis is anywhere near to be as disruptive as some of the other people... and I am not even sure if Lvhis was even responsible for what you accused him of. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The check-off list at WP:Not being here to build an encyclopedia helps us to recognize the edit history of Lvhis for what it is. --Tenmei (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User:Lvhis is indefinitely placed on 1RR/week restriction for all Senkaku Islands topics

5) User:Lvhis is indefinitely placed on 1RR/week restriction for 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If your rational is from your evidence part "Edit warring over {{POV-title}} tag [52] ", please be referred to pertaining norm, guide, and policy named in my comment on proposed findings of fact there . Also you mis-linked or over-counted one instance on me: this one [53] (now numbered as [201] in your Evidence) is my self-revert as I compromised to Qwyrxian's complain to change the revert reason. And you also missed Tenmei's edit-war on removing POV-title tag that he at least reverted for 4 times. --Lvhis (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User:Tenmei is banned indefinitely from Senkaku Islands topics

6) User:Tenmei is 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

While I believe Tenmei could one day work on topics related to the Senkaku Islands, he probably should first show the community that he is capable of contributing coherently. Thus he can request from Arbcom that he be allowed to be reinstated after showing this. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The presumption in the words "capable of contributing coherently" is not valid, not demonstrable, unworthy -- compare my part in bringing 2010 G-20 Toronto summit to GA status.

Yes, my participation has been under-appreciated, marginalized and partly misunderstood; but it is also proven that tit-for-tat edits fared less well in threads muddied with "delegitimization as a tactic" and other tactical goals -- compare thread (29-30 Jan 2011); diff (30 Jan 2011); compare subsequent review (31 Aug 2011); see also diff (9 June 2011).

Rather than a judgmental adjective like "coherent", perhaps a better way to characterize my edits is with the phrase "above the fray" or "under the radar" or "focused on underlying issues". In other words, is it possible that Magog's cursory glance simply didn't capture that I was steadfast in keeping my "eyes on the prize", e.g.,

File:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement1.svg The pyramid graphic posted at WP:DR is the only image on the page. This is the specific wording of the pyramid graphic which was identified by Qwyrxian as an "unhelpful image" here. The graphic emphasizes a few terms:

1. Refuting the Central Point → refutes the central point
2. Refutation → finds the mistake and explains why its mistaken using quotes
3. Counterargument → contradicts and then backs it up with reasoning and/or supporting evidence
4. Contradiction → states the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence
5. Responding to Tone → criticizes the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument
6. Ad Hominem → attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument
7. Name calling → sounds something like, "You are an ass hat."

At WP:DR, the image caption is an hortatory command: "Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid."

The thinking and strategy which informed diffs at Talk:Senkaku Islands and Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute was not inconsistent with my diffs in this ArbCom venue. The caption of the pyramid graphic at WP:DR is my sword and my shield and my explanation in these article contexts. It is "pro-Wikipedia" to stay in the top three sections of the pyramid others to do the same; and it is "pro-Wikipedia" to discourage exacerbating diffs like the ones identified in the bottom of the pyramid, e.g., contradiction, responding to tone, ad hominem, and name calling. As for the diffs on Magog's user talk page, that is somewhat different -- see Analysis of Evidence presented by Magog the Ogre below --Tenmei (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User:Tenmei is banned for a period of one year from Senkaku Islands topics

7) User:Tenmei is topic banned for a period of one year 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A close second to above. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User:Tenmei is indefinitely placed on 1RR/week restriction for all Senkaku Islands topics

8) User:Tenmei is indefinitely placed on 1RR/week restriction for 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

User:Lvhis is warned about edit warring

9) User:Lvhis is warned about edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If your rational is from your evidence part "Edit warring over {{POV-title}} tag [54] ", please be referred to pertaining norm, guide, and policy named in my comment on proposed findings of fact there . Also you mis-linked or over-counted one instance on me: this one [55] (now numbered as [201] in your Evidence) is my self-revert as I compromised to Qwyrxian's complain to change the revert reason. And you also missed Tenmei's edit-war on removing POV-title tag that he at least reverted for 4 times. --Lvhis (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User:Phoenix7777 is warned about edit warring

10) User:Phoenix7777 is warned about edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The check-off list at WP:Being here to build an encyclopedia helps us to recognize the edit history of Phoenix7777 for what it is. --Tenmei (talk) 15:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User:John Smith's is warned about edit warring

11) User:John Smith's is warned about edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The check-off list at WP:Being here to build an encyclopedia helps us to recognize the edit history of John Smith's for what it is. --Tenmei (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User:Oda Mari is cautioned about edit warring

12) User:Oda Mari is cautioned about edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The check-off list at WP:Being here to build an encyclopedia helps us to recognize the edit history of Oda Mari for what it is. --Tenmei (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Edit-wars and Gaming the System

I saw that Qwyrxian commented in his evidence [56] that I have a willingness to game the system (xe advocated getting the page locked so that people give up and leave.

I would like to point out that this event occurred during a time when there was a lot of disruptive editing and edit-wars going on, which was also considered to be a major problem by Qwyrxian himself back then [57]:

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

In #1 of this section, I showed that the pages were locked by the administrator known as User:Nihonjoe partly in response to on-going edit-wars. Since I did not participate or incite the edit-wars, I am not certain how I could be accused of gaming the system.

However, two parties responsible for the aforementioned edit-wars did in fact erroneously accuse me of allegedly planning an edit-war (see Diff-set #1 in this diff section). Since then, one of them (Tenmei) has seen fit to consider every action I take as some sort of sinister conspiracy (see #2 of "Newsletters". Some examples of such McCarthyism can be seen in these ArbCom pages ([58][59]). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:25, 10 September 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

Numerous parties (namely Qwyrxian, Magog the Ogre, and Oda Mari) accused me of Battleground, CANVASS, and/or Tag-teaming in their evidence (see their evidence).

Battleground

I would start off by showing this diff from my evidence [60]:

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 -- Qwyrxian, written on Feb 4, 2011

This quote by Qwyrxian himself (long ago) suggested that BATTLEGROUND is a systemic problem harboured by many parties. This serves to contradict the tone of his evidence, which subtly presents this as a an isolated problem that is attributed to only myself and STSC. To further support this contradiction, I'd refer the audience to the list of examples in my evidence where I showed how others parties had taken the initiative to provoke a battleground setting (Section Link).

I will end this section with a reminder the act of holding a selected few individuals responsible for a systemic problem caused by many parties can in itself be considered as an act backed by a battleground mentality, especially if:

1. The roles played by some major contributors to the issue are overlooked or justified by dubious excuses (i.e. language barrier as a reason for insults)
2. The overlooked contributors to the issue are largely on the same side of the conflict as the accusers --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Canvass

Next, there's Oda Mari's allegation of CANVASS [61]. The examples she quoted with a time stamp of October 2010 is ridiculous, because I only joined WP on September 2010. Also interestingly, nobody warned me of it until this ArbCom case.

The other "canvassing" example dated to Summber 2011 [62] is also ridiculous because the matter of concern deals with Chinese linguistics. If the audience follows the second link of the quoted post, it'd lead back to a discussion in WP_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names), which one may observe that I had made several statements of regarding an intent to inviting Project China and zh:WP over for commentary (and which nobody replied to). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Tag-Team

Oda Mari considers my collaboration with STSC and Lvhis to be tag-teaming, but does not consider the "newletters" Tenmei regularly sends to John Smiths, Oda Mari, and Phoenix7777. In this very page, we can also see some form of tag-teaming going on between John Smiths, Oda Mai, and Tenemi in seeing how the former two selectively offered exceedingly generous leniency to the latter but yet advocating ridiculous motions against others [63][64].

Abuse of Administrative Authority

Lvhis [65] (see "Improper conduct with double standards and gaming the system ruined efforts preventing edit-warring") and I [66] (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 [67] 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 [68] and had been very compliant with Magog's standard ever since (such as consulting Magog over every step of the BRD [69]). 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" [70], 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 [71] 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. [72] (Bold)
2. It was reverted by Tenmei [73] (Revert)
3. Discussion ensued on the talk page (Discuss)
4. 3 days later Tenmei made a new edit, different from Lvhis's. [74] (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)

@Qwyrxian, your interpretation of BRD about Tenmei's August 4 edit is wrong. Let us see here:

1. I made an edit after discussion as a sort of concensus. [75] (Bold)
2. It was reverted by Tenmei [[76]] (Revert)
3. Discussion ensued on the talk page (Discuss). Three days later the discussion was still ongoing because you had joined in as his partner and I had to talk with you first by following BRD's Talk with one or at most two partners at once. If Tenmei wanted to edit this section in his way as he actually did 3 days later [77] that differed from the one he reverted, he should have included his such version in the discussion for discuss. He should have had to wait for the discussion that exactly he started fully finished, then he or anyone else participating the discussion could start next "B" as the "D" satisfied. Otherwise, say, I revert your edit and start a "D", but start my "B" with no need to finish the "D". What is the "D" for here? We just need "BR" → "BR" → "BR" ...? Here I would say one more time the edit I made there [78] was a outcome of certain consensus after "D" when you were absent from that page.--Lvhis (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Qwyrxian is quite completely wrong with his argument and has apparently not followed the exchange with Magog the Ogre [79]. The problem with Tenmei's violation was that he made a change on a section that was at the D-stage of a BRD cycle. Had he made a change at a different section of the article, this discussion would not have occurred.

While it is possible that this is all a series of good faith mistakes committed by Magog, his distinct lack of an apologetic tone and his confrontational attitude do not give a convincing impression of a good admin making a careless mistakes. Regardless of whether or not his actions and unprofessional attitude can be classified as administrative abuse, it's certainly a type of significantly inappropriate conduct. I'd also say the relentless support of an admin's misconduct by another admin if also a red flag because it demonstrates a serious flaw in judgment and objectivity. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. --Lvhis (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way Lvhis, you should be careful about using things like [cf.55] in place of diffs because your referencing will be inaccurate once a new diff is added or removed in places upstream to this thread (i.e. the number does not automatically update). I think I wrote something about this today, but it appears I accidentally deleted the paragraph before I submitted the post. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in a micro-level debate about the BRD process here. I think you're wrong, you (both) think I'm wrong, ArbCom can sort it out, if it even matters. Finally, though, my adminship has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this forum. I have not and will not ever act as an administrator on these pages. I'm defending Magog because I believe he applied policy, even if not completely correctly, at least within the bounds of administrative discretion and certainly not in an abusive way. It's just like how I defended your position on Remin Ribao, not because I'm drawing some sort of allegiance with you, but because I thought you were right. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

So now you don't want to get into a "micro-level debate"? I don't know what's so "micro-level" with this BRD discussion, since the points we made are pretty simple. It's a shame that you would relentlessly defend a wrong decision, label others as being mistaken, but then refuse to sufficiently justify your position. Idontlikeit much?

And no, I've never said you have any allegiance with Magog. Rather simply, you seem to be becoming progressively more BATTLEGROUND recently. Your support for me in a past issue was appreciated, but it also occurred at a distant past before you became emotionally entrenched with all this. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Re: Everything related to Feezo

Since Feezo was our mediator, it requires a full disclosure of the content within the mediation to address my dispute with him. If the ArbCom would like to get into that, I will defend my actions according to the inaccessible materials. Otherwise, there is only one piece of non-censored exchange between Feezo and I, which is listed as evidence by multiple parties (here are some links from their evidence sections [80][81]).

The parties that raised a red-flag about my behaviour in that thread neglected to mention that Feezo was the instigator of that loaded exchange and had taken the initiative to bait on multiple occasions. The original message I wrote to him was simply a heads-up about the amount of controversy he caused in inappropriately removing a POV tag, which resulted in a full blown ANI against Penwhale (see Point #2 in this section). His first response was a passive aggressive comment and later posts were personal attacks (that Qwyrxian and Magog the Ogre conveniently did not describe in their evidence).

The following comment of mine (quoted by others) requires some addressing:

Yes, I do strongly recommend not to spend too much time in WP. While it may seem 1337 for a person to show off his 50k+ edits in contribution history, there are other things in life that can benefit more from such dedication. If you don't mind me asking, what's your training and what kind of job are you looking for? -- Bobthefish2

1. The comment about having 50000 edits is 1337 was not directed to Magog or Feezo, since neither of them come even close to having 50000 edits.
2. The question about education background and job-hunting are simply casual questions in response to Magog's post regarding how he's partially employed and looking for a job.
3. At that point in time (when this thread took place), Magog and I had a friendly wiki-relationship (for verification, track my exchanges with Magog prior to and subsequent to the quoted thread) and thus that's even less likely to be an attack of his employment status.

One last thing I would like to mention is that Feezo and I later had an e-mail exchange which appeared to have settled our personal differences. Unless he disputes this, I am going to leave it at that. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Short Analysis of Magog's Evidence

Magog's section about me [82], in general, is filled with petty and inaccurate complaints:

• Bullets #1 and #2 - About Feezo. Everything relating to Feezo is discussed in a previous section above, since he is from MedCom
• Bullet #3 - About mentality instability. All I said was "forgetting their medication", which is largely a reference to diff #2 [83] of this evidence section. This diff showed showed a conversation in the distant past where Magog using almost the exact same phrase in a light-hearted conversation with me. Qwyrxian made the same complaint about mental instability and my feeling is that both he and Magog are simply picking bones out of egg-yolk now that we are enemies (Well in the sense that we are advising disciplinary measures against each other).
• Bullets #4 and #5 - Petty complaints about use of smileys. Not much to say really
• BRD issue - He portrayed an inquiry into his handling of the issue as something sinister and stubbornly wrong even though his mistakes were made crystal clear and his conduct was criticized by another admin (see my evidence on Magog the Ogre [84]). The sub-page [85] where he offered a "fuller explanation" was consisted of:
  • Some inaccurate explanation on why Tenmei did not break BRD. I've shown exactly why Tenmei did break BRD in a post at this diff [86] made at the time step of 01:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC) (the one with a BRD flowchart).
  • Some inaccurate accusations about how I was supposedly contesting a deserving block suffered by Lvhis'. This was discussed in the ArbCom thread [87], where his accusation was discredited. Nonetheless, he continued with the accusations based on facts generated by his imagination. Specifically, he said I "implied it" because "I never disabused (my) ally Lvhis".
  • He ended ups subpage with an impressive tirade about my "tendencies" to lie, troll, and edit-war [88]. Notice how he had taken out some of the most damning words that are indicative of his immaturity as an administrator [89] ... after I made started to make an issue out of it.

In short. Magog has shown an inability to behave maturely as an admin. When faced with legitimate criticisms of his actions as an admin, he did not strive for correcting the said mistakes. But instead, he attacked his critics, nit-picked their flaws, and then proposed [90][91] some indefinite bans to get rid of them. This type of person is not suited to be an administrator in any respectable medium.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Re "1-Evidence presented by Penwhale"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Re "2-Evidence presented by STSC"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Re "3-Evidence presented by Lvhis"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Re "4-Evidence presented by Cla68"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Re "5-Evidence presented by Qwyrxian"

Tenmei

The dates of hyperlinks which Qwyrxian selected are these. --Tenmei (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• thread, 16-18 January 2010; diff, 12 August 2011
• phrase; diff, 15 October 2010
• archive, 3-29 October 2010
• diff, 16 October 2010; diff, 17 October 2010
• diff, 15 August 2011

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Qwyrxian conflates "behaviour" and "diffs" in ways which create pigeonholes and false dilemmas. This conceptual model converts anything and everything into something which seems to show cause for complaint.

The first sentence of Qwyrxian's "evidence" serves as my rebuttal:

"Tenmei's behavior in Arbitration so far exemplifies the problems xe has in the SI articles." (29 August)

If the words are credited, they summarize a counterargument which undermines the rationale for the remedy he proposes. Qwyrxian's knee-jerk reaction to all of my diffs causes him to reject whatever I write, even when the words are crafted by someone else. Qwyrxian is rejecting phrases and concepts drafted by Coren and adopted as if they were my own. The hyperlinked words are endorsed by 150+ members of our community. These words are adapted and restated in the sections I posted on our case page, evidence page and workshop page. In other words, Qwyrxian does not address the substance of what I wrote; instead he complains

"Tenmei's writing style is obscure and filled with links ...."

In this instance, the term "obscure" is another self-fulfilling prophesy from which there is no escape.

Qwyrxian's complaints are over-reaching, and the remedies proposed are disproportionate to the evidence presented. --Tenmei (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Re "6-Evidence presented by Bobthefish2"

Tenmei

Hyperlinks which Bobthefish2 added to evidence on September 11 are these. --Tenmei (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

1. diff; diff 21 February 2011
2. diff 28 July 2011
3. diff; diff; diff 19 July 2011
4. dif 19 July 2011 duplicate
5. diff 19 May 2011
6. diff 15 February 2011

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Re "7 Evidence presented by Tenmei"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Re "8-Evidence presented by Oda Mari'

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Re "9-Evidence presented by User:John Smith's"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Re "10-Evidence presented by Magog the Ogre"

Tenmei

The dates of hyperlinks which Magog selected are these. --Tenmei (talk) 05:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• diff, 1 August 2011
• diff, 4 September 2011; thread, 4-13 August 2011

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

What is the point of this section? The Arbs are quite capable of reading timestamps, and it frankly just adds to the clutter. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

@ Magog -- your so-called evidence about me is your opinion. In each of three bullets, there is a mis-match. The conclusory opinion is definite, but the support is not. Each illustrates the consequences of an information asymmetry; and your "snap judgment" distorted things further. In general, the value and credibility of your snap judgments is underscored by those who confirmed you as an administrator; and reliability of this skill is honed by experience. There is a place for decision-making based on summary assessments, but not in this ArbCom venue.

• "Delegitimization" or "Strategic fraud"

  This verb "delegitimize" and what Magog says it means are helpful in other contexts beyond the specifics of one instance:

Notably, before the event even occurred, I'd already been expecting for Bob to pick a fight sooner or later in an attempt to delegitimize me. I was proven magnificently correct. It's difficult to believe it was an organic thought process (and not an opportunity to pick a fight) given how quickly it happened. (emphasis added)

The concept "WP:Delegitimization as a tactic" needs to be re-stated and underscored -- see also Proposed remedies: "Delegitimization as a tactic" above.

Re Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Magog posted a warning on my talk page because of something Bobthefish2 alleged -- not because of something specific which was observed nor because of some mistake I made, but solely on the basis of an accusation designed to deflect attention from Bob to me. This gambit succeeded.

I denied the false claim, and I offered specific support for that denial. What would have been the likely consequence of ignoring the very specific warning?

This dilemma was not of my own making; and in the awkward context, my response was seemly and proportionate. Magog's warning effectively endorsed Bob's delegitimizing attack.

When Magog rejected my words, Magog was officially validating Bob's tactic.

My restatement used the words of others because sentences drafted by someone else are resistant to complaints that I write badly. The words in wikiquote are selected precisely because they are written in a comprehensible manner. It is hard to figure out how or why the substance of these re-used words is also marginalized, but it is not for lack of trying -- see also "Analysis of Evidence presented by Qwyrxian" above.

An unexpected consequence of my research led to the discovery of an analysis which explains the arc of diffs posted by Bobthefish2 and San9696 and STSC and Lvhis:

Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about [verifiability and academic credibility]. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact .... Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that ...." -- After the McLean v. Arkansas creationism trial, as quoted in Review of the National Center for Science Education Vol. 24, No. 6 (November–December 2004)

Magog's evidence becomes useful as a cautionary example which shows how easy it is to mistake the difference between "winning" and the process of building an encyclopedia.

In this bullet, the summation opinion is not evidence when Magog explain, "In other words, Tenmei implies ...." This is a factoid only. It is a questionable or spurious—unverified, incorrect, or fabricated—statement presented as a fact, but with no veracity.

It is also not evidence when Magog argue "he ignores other editor's points". This is also only a factoid. It is an example of unreliable information which is repeated so often that it becomes accepted as if it were a fact

In the Strategic fraud thread which Magog cited, my diffs show an active effort to try to understand and parse what others are writing -- see also User:Tenmei is banned indefinitely from Senkaku Islands topics --Tenmei (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• WP:V and WP:NPOV

  Magog strings clauses together, offering conclusory judgments as factoids, but with no veracity. Magog argues "Tenmei thinks ...," but what follows is not what I think. The misjudgment is another example of information asymmetry and conflation. If necessary, I can try to restate what I wrote about WP:V and WP:NPOV in the threads Magog cites link1, link2), but I don't know what to make of Magog's words when he writes (a) "edit warring is not edit warring, and (b) "WP:NPOV is irrelevant"?

• WP:DIVA

  Magog is correct that I withdrew from active participation in this subject for a short time. On talk pages of each active editor, I asked, "Is it possible that my contributions are somehow 'feeding' conflict?" I proposed, "One way to test the hypothesis is by simply stepping back for a while." This distancing gesture is inconsistent with the Magog's use of m:MPOV or WP:DIVA.

  Magog's evidence focuses ArbCom's attention on one edit as the straw causing this arbitration), but this is only a pretext. Magog acknowledges the information asymmetry when he explains "it's just so difficult to read that page history and figure out what's gotten some people upset and what hasn't." When I withdrew, Lvhis collapsed some of my talk page contributions as off-topic. The subject which was explicit, e.g., "... why making such edit change: to clarify an already effective misleading that 'Senkaku Islands' is the English name" for these disputed Islands." (29 July 2011) and "... the main point of the change is to clarify that "SI" is the Japanese name." (30 July 2011).

  In contrast, the pretext for arbitration is a series of very narrowly written sentences with very specific support -- nothing to do with the Senkaku name.

  In addition, I was very careful to follow the BRD pattern; and for redundant emphasis, I copied a BRD graphic from Magog's talk page. I note that Qwyrxian highlights this timely BRD explanation as misconduct -- see 1st diff in Evidence presented by Qwyrxian.

  Magog's complaints are over-reaching, and the remedies proposed are disproportionate. --Tenmei (talk) 21:08, 15 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:

General discussion

Looking forward

ArbCom fails when it "can't see the forest for the trees". General discussion may help mitigate the ways our process falls short.

Bad apples

Magog argues that "censure of the bad apples would be quite helpful." This is only tangential to our primary goal, which is ensuring the academic credibility of the articles in our collaborative editing project. For example, bad apples are a side issue when Qwyrixian highlights the tension between "non-opinion" and "opinion", e.g.,

• diff (3 Feb 2011); excerpt, "... what I'm trying to say is that I believe Bobthefish2 that the Chinese was mistranslated, but I'm loathe to abandon WP:V just based on AGF-ing him".

Rejecting "bad apples" is not the only function of ArbCom, nor will this help us to work out ways to avert similar difficulties.

You are kind-of correct that it's tangential, but the point that Magog and I have made is that the "bad apples" are so bad that they are preventing us from achieving our primary goal. Furthermore, since Arbcom may only rule on behavioral issues, not content issues, there's not much more that they can do than these types of remedies. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

@ Qwyrxian -- in the context this ArbCom case creates, specific aspects of a content dispute are re-packaged and re-labeled as "conduct" or "behaviour" and this conflation is not good for the further growth of our collaborative editing project. Your words demonstrate that you have lost your way, mistakenly attempting to force square pegs into round holes --Tenmei (talk) 10:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Prevention is better than cure

In his initial analysis, John Smith's observed here that "[s]ometimes prevention is better than cure".

The diffs cited by others were selected for purposes which have been made explicit. In each perceived example of misconduct, the question becomes something to do with discovering a plausible antidote or anti-tactic which might have served to "re-frame" or "spin" something better?

According to Elen of the Roads, it is also important to try to figure out what is causing people to behave badly.

It is crucial to emphasize the distinction between "behaving badly" and misjudgments or mis-steps. For example, like Oda Mari, I sometimes think that Qwyrxian is "trying to be fair too much, losing his own way" -- compare Qwyxian's willingness to "abandon WP:V just based on AGF". Among the notable causes of this ArbCom case were the best efforts of Qwyrxian as he tried to apply our rules and policies in a complex context, e.g.,

• thread (26-27 Jan 2011) + Q-diff (27 Jan 2011) + B-diff (27 Jan 2011) + compare Q-diff (9 June 2011)
• thread (29-30 Jan 2011) + Q-diff (30 Jan 2011) + compare subsequent Q-diff (31 Aug 2011) + see also Q-diff (9 June 2011)

With the best of intentions, Qwyrxian encouraged what should have been discouraged, trying to be fair too much, losing his own way. --Tenmei (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Unstated premises

This is modified from Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands#Issues to be mediated

Unstated premises in the scope of arbitration need to be explicit. Some of the foreseeable consequences of some problems are mitigated by identifying them.

• Domino effect. Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute are complicated by the "domino effect" which flows from every step of the articles' development. In our context, "domino effect" is a term-of-art → Zhongqi Pan, "Sino-Japanese Dispute over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands: The Pending Controversy from the Chinese Perspective," Journal of Chinese Political Science, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2007; excerpt, "The possible negative domino effect of the dispute... lies in the dispute’s implications for the wider context of the two countries’ approaches to maritime and island disputes"

• Looking backward. This subject is a battleground.

• Looking forward. Arbitration's structural premise is that all necessary parties have agreed to participate; but not all are joined. In the future as in the past, this subject will attract editors whose single-purpose perspective will skew our collaborative editing process.

• Fact vs. factoid. Our conventional processes and threshold requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia are not dispensable when POV is alleged to be a red flag.

• False dilemma. Characterising the participants as "both sides pretty much entrenched and non-collaborative" is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

A few questions are practical and necessary:

• What could any one of us done differently to avert this ArbCom case? What happens after the ArbCom case is closed?
• When where some of the pivotal points at which problems could have been "nipped in the bud"?
• Where were opportunities squandered?
• How were the "bad apples" enabled by the inaction or encouragement of others?

Our investment in this ArbCom process fails if it only results in punitive remedies. --Tenmei (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: