Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration | Tang Dynasty

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Enkyo2 (talk | contribs) at 18:47, 18 April 2009 (→Asserting RfA "Issue #4": tweaking diffs -- substituting key phrase in lieu of "diff"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence presented by Teeninvestor

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

Consensus reached at subject article

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

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

Alleged misuse of sources

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

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

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

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

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

User:Tenmei has yet to show my source is unverifiable

User:Tenmei have yet to shown how my source is "unverifiable". So far I have a) provided full bibliographical information about the source b) provide page numbers for citations c) provided a website for the source(which has been screened). It seems Tenmei's obstinacy(as can be shown by the section "tenmei's behaviour") is the main reason for this dispute, rather than any problems with the "source". In fact, he needs to reread WP:V and verify HIS claims.

In his "asserting WP:V is not disruptive" Tenmei cited the contributions of an IP user which was not myself, speaking volumes about his ability to communicate and understand others.

His misunderstanding of WP:V causes him to come to strange judgements about how my text and bok is "unverifiable", even though the above information has been presented to him and he could have checked out the book(if he had the knowledge of the language) as User:penwhale did.

Screened by User:PericlesOfAthens and User:Penwhale

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

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

The above two users have stated the information of the source is correct and the source was presented with correct bibliographic information as to allow the reader to verify the source; however, Tenmei's attempts to construe it as unreliable and POV, is extremely disruptive, as shown by later statements.

Tenmei's behaviour

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

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

diff diff

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third opinion on Tenmei

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

Tenmei's abuse of the dispute resolution system

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

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

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

Evidence presented by Tenmei

Introduction. Conflation of issues is a common theme in archived ArbCom cases -- no less in this case than in Franco-Mongol_alliance or PHG. I initiated this ArbCom case to address three narrowly-focused issues which were sometimes conflated in the broader context of a fourth. In the alternative, Teeninvestor seeks to leverage or re-frame my temerity as the sole issue, conflating all issues into perceived problems with my "behaviour."

Teeninvestor cast a wide net to find evidence, investing more time in searching for "evidence" to discredit me than in trying to identify common ground. I don't understand why this wasn't wrongful WP:Canvassing; but it doesn't matter because Teeninvestor tactic proved to be unexpectedly beneficial. It helped me in re-focusing attention on the arc of my contributions. What matters most are the ways in which the quality of my contributions have been improved by participating in disputes, no less than what I have learned from other Wikipedia experiences.

The measure of ArbCom's success will play out in whatever manages to improve the quality of future contributions from the participants in this case. The initial layout of issues from my perspective is seemly and on point.

In my view, ArbCom's goal is to articulate and explain Wikipedia policies which provide a context in which an article is created.

Asserting RfA "Issue #1"

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

ArbCom intervention is needed because attempts to assert WP:V as a point of common agreement became an illustration of temerity. This ArbCom case begins with the temerity documented in the following:

The edit summary above attributes an inappropriate or improper POV as the explanation for my allegedly wrongful edits.

The edit summary below complains instead about deletions which are construed as unexplained, implying my passive failure to provide data with which to form an opinion, but also implying a pro-active campaign to exacerbate a dispute in which conventional wisdom is likely to adduce that "it takes two to tango":

Teeninvestor has variously construed my edits -- and indeed my attempt to use the dispute resolution system -- as a kind of effrontery, as played out in this short exchange:

The question for ArbCom becomes one of suggesting alternate strategies which could have mitigated this evolving problem? Whatever happened, it wasn't caused by something which can be adduced from within the unfolding diffs above.

Asserting RfA "Issue #2"

WP:V incorporating WP:Burden rejected by Teeninvestor -- diff.

Gordian Knot

Two adjacent diffs -- [1] and [2] -- are linked in Teeninvestor's complaints about my alleged "disruptive behavior."

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

A cursory review of the edit history refutes this hollow complaint.

Teeninvestor's accusation falls apart under closer scrutiny.

In contrast, G Purevdorj observed that while most of the Mongolia work group just perceived the vandalism and were flabbergasted that they were alone in doing so, your involvement at least managed to provoke evidence that is obvious for anyone to see.

The question for ArbCom becomes one of suggesting alternate strategies which could have mitigated this evolving problem?

Asserting RfA "Issue #3"

WP:RSUE incorporating WP:Burden rejected by Teeninvestor -- here.

Gordian Knot

Summary:

For redundant clarity, this diff is confirmation that Teeninvestor's ALL CAPS claims about the would-be imprimatur was false, known to be false, and presented with the purpose of convincing others to wrongly rely on that false claim as compliance with WP:V.

For redundant clarity, PericlesofAthens' helpful diff also suggests that it was not disruptive to seek further clarification, as I have felt compelled to do -- even to the point of initiating this ArbCom case in the absence of any other practicable option.

The question for ArbCom becomes one of suggesting alternate strategies which could have mitigated this evolving problem?

Asserting RfA "Issue #4"

Issues identified above became conflated in real-world disputes, e.g.,

The title of Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty suggests something to do with the history of 7th-8th century Central Asia, but an unexplained backstory or subtext intruded in the development of the article. Problems encountered in this article are emblematic of problems affecting unrelated editors and articles.

Teeninvestor argues that these issues are mooted by subsequent edits -- diff.

Teeninvestor proposes changing the article name to Tang-Gokturk wars -- diff.

The question for ArbCom becomes one of suggesting alternate strategies which could have mitigated this evolving problem?

ArbCom's purpose are fulfilled when the process affects more than just the parties' concerns and issues. WP:V and academic integrity must be an indispensable priority because, unlike "simple" incivility, the potential damage destroys the credibility of our encyclopedia. --Tenmei (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Yaan

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think that "You don't have any source to show that my source is wrong" (My inference from Teeninvestor's proposed principles for this arbitration, [7], [8]) is enough to establish the reliability of a source. In any case I therefore reject these two proposed principles I just linked to.

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

Evidence presented by Nick-D

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

Tenmei's behaviour

I was one of several editors involved in a dispute with Tenmei over the Hyūga class helicopter destroyer‎ article (the essence of which can still be seen at: Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer). On the basis of this experience I endorse Teeninvestor's comments on Tenmei's behavior, and can confirm that the details he posted relating to the dispute on this article are correct. In this dispute Tenmei created a massive mountain out a molehill concerning a single sentance by posting vast and uncivil messages in which he never actually explained his position, despite repeated requests that he did so. He deliberetly sat out the process of developing consensus text on the issue in question and, in a clear WP:POINT violation, 'reset' (his word) the debate after consensus text had been endorsed by all the other involved editors ([9]). Despite the involvement of several other editors Tenmei personalised this dispute on me in a manner which, to be frank, I found disturbing. An attempt at mediation initiated by Tenmei collapsed before it began when I withdrew after he started canvassing against me with a highly disruptive editor - this obviously wasn't a sign of good faith! ([10]). Following this Tenmei continued his peronalisation of the conflict upon me by attempting to start a RfA on me, which was swiftly rejected by Arbcom.

Tenmei was warned against his behavior over this article repeated times ([11], [12], [13], [14], [15] and [16] are a few examples). As he has continued his highly disruptive pattern of posting vast quantities of text in arguments, making uncivil comments and personalising disputes ArbCom should consider imposing sanctions on Tenmei if this RfA is accepted. Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by User:Coldmachine

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

Tenmei's behaviour

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

While Tenmei seems guided by high standards in terms of editing content, s/he also seems unable to engage with the process of consensus building in a fashion which would yield an effective outcome. Tenmei has been warned[17] about obstructing the process of consensus building – which I witnessed in an attempt to ‘reset’ discussion, for example - and for refusing to present arguments in Plain English preferring an overly elaborate and convoluted presentation of views which could be considered disruptive editing – a behavioural guideline which covers any “campaign to drive away productive contributors...that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.” Other editors have commented on this also, for example here and at ANI.

While I have no knowledge of the current case, and would wager that this is rather another content dispute which needs to go through dispute resolution rather than waste the time of the ArbCom, I do believe that – despite good editing intentions and strict adherence to content policies – Tenmei’s inability to engage with his/her fellow editors is of concern and may therefore be of separate but relevant interest to the Committee. ColdmachineTalk 22:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by User:Bueller007

I have no prior history editing in the topic at hand. I was contacted by Teeninvestor to make a statement. I'll put it simply and more civilly than I have elsewhere:

  • Tenmei means well.
  • Tenmei (like myself) is argumentative, obstinate, and sometimes snarky.
  • Unlike myself, he is quick to resort to mediation, arbitration, (etc.) seemingly to the point where I would almost consider it "abuse of the system".
  • It is my personal opinion that he frequently edits on topics he knows little-to-nothing about, and does not heed the advice of people who know better. In the small portion of his edits that I have looked at, there have been a number of grievous errors.
  • Many of his edits are well-sourced but unproductive, IMO, plaguing Wikipedia with Wikipedia:Too_long;_didn't_read, like his comments that you see above. His edits often reduce the readability of Wikipedia significantly, even when they are factually correct. Use of tl;dr to "win" arguments seems to be part of his M.O.
  • For the most part I have given up trying to correct errors and tl;dr in his articles because I don't need the inevitable hassle.
  • As I'm largely ignorant of Chinese history I hesitate to say who is "correct" in the matter of the article at hand, but if references have been provided, and an "expert" has looked at the article and approved of it, then there shouldn't be a problem in making the statement. Using multilingual people from around the world to bring expertise from other languages into English Wikipedia is one of the great benefits of the system. It looks like English references have also been provided, so what's the problem? Bueller 007 (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by {your user name}

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

{Write your assertion here}

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tang_Dynasty/Evidence&oldid=284659810"