Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Workshop

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 19:33, 21 April 2009 (→‎User:Tenmei should make himself clear). 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

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

Motion to encompass Caspian blue as "involved" party

(1) The arguably constructive contributions of Caspian blue have been specifically noted by John Vandenberg, FayssalF and Sam Blacketer. However, the context of the following exchange of messages and the off-wiki communication these histories reveal was enough to give me pause.

The subsequent new direction of Teeninvestor's expansive argument at "We need to refocus the debate" persuades me that the polite fiction of an "uninvolved Caspian blue" must be abandoned.

Select revision history of User talk:Teeninvestor

Select revision history of User talk:Caspian blue

The recusal of clerk Tznkai here is better understood as part of an otherwise unexplained backstory or subtext; and this is only superficially illustrated at User talk:Tznkai#Missed the point.

The terse comment about canvassing here by Gunpowder Ma was helpful in calling my attention to problem which, in this instance, has an easy remedy. In order to avoid needless distraction from more important matters, I would encourage ArbCom to overlook anything to do with WP:Canvassing.

In the unique context Caspian blue and Teeninvestor have contrived together, it does not matter that Caspian blue is currently banned for 24-hours. --Tenmei (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
I found it quite laughable, but no more laughable Tenmei's attempt to merge inner asia during the Tang dynasty with salting the earth. I have interacted with Caspian Blue in my research on user:Tenmei's background in a request for some links he could give me, but he has refused my request. I found it strange that user:Tenmei would try to put him in this case; Caspian Blue's testimony was exceedingly favorable to user:Tenmei and negative to myself. In any case, I oppose this motion because user:Caspian Blue was not involved in this "Tang dynasty" dispute.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
Would you give evidences that I have contacted Teeninvestor via off-line and I made a conspiracy against you instead of throwing your "mere" speculations and another bad-faith accusation here? Even if I would report your second 3RR violation to AN3 that I witnessed (you knew I was there), that does not mean that I'm involved in this RfAr case because I have nothing to do with which you felt to initiate the case. If the case only focuses on you, I might have been unwillingly involved in, but for this case, no. Given this and your quoting me on the evidence page, you've tried to "use me" to get out of the incivility and disruption accusation by editors in good standing.--Caspian blue 20:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

1st questions for Teeninvestor

No I do not wish to strike out any of my words unless an arbitrator can show them to be in violation of wikipedia's policies.Teeninvestor (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two to tango is a common idiomatic expression which suggests something in which more than one are paired in an inextricably-related and active manner. The phrase recognizes that there are certain activities which cannot be achieved singly -- like arguing, making love, dancing the tango and editing Wikipedia. I wonder if you might feel inclined to review the "dance" which developed at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty; and in retrospect, I wonder if you might want to re-consider those unhelpful words which continue to be provocative, offensive, insupportable, unnecessary? --Tenmei (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back, are you unwilling or unable to identify one or more instances in which handling something differently might have mitigated any element of the dispute which has now become an ArbCom case? --Tenmei (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2nd questions for Teeninvestor

Re: "Consensus reached at subject article"
Teeninvestor -- As you know, you actually offer no evidence in the first section of "Evidence presented by Teeninvestor." As you may not know, what you have offered can't withstand closer scrutiny. The phrases do flow together well, but on closer inspection, the insubstantial nature of these allegations is revealed, e.g.,

  • Allegation 1: "deleted without explanation by Tenmei and others"
The complaint in this phrase is addressed in detail at "Evidence presented by Tenmei" (Asserting RfA "Issue #1"); but in addition, this reported wrong-doing doesn't match up easily with your claims about consensus-building consensus. Without more detail, the assertions about unexplained deletions and about engaging a viable consensus would seem likely to flow from contradictory or mutually exclusive narratives. It is only reasonable to ask for a little amplification.
Question: What specifically was "deleted without explanation by Tenmei and others"?
  • Allegation 2: "solicited a 3O from other editors"
The neutral, disinterested voice anticipated by Wikipedia:Third opinion doesn't appear to embrace pointed comments by those with whom you have already established on-going, collaborative working relationships. How can it not be construed as misleading when you mischaracterize the plainly supportive comments of Pericles of Athens and Arilang ? It is only reasonable to ask for a little clarification.
Question: Other than these two friends, who did you mean to include within "3O from other editors"?
  • Allegation 3: "working with existing editors"
The logical inconsistency of this claim in the context created above is already suggested; but in addition, an inevitable corollary question becomes "who?" Who were the existing editors with whom you worked effectively? The edit history of Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty includes a limited number of contributors. It is only reasonable to ask for a little more specificity.
Question: Who participated in the exchange of views which becomes the hallmark of "working with existing editors"?
  • Allegation 4: "helped form a consensus"
The logical inconsistency of this claim is already indicated; but this allegation also implies a need to inquire about "how" and "when" in addition to "who?" How and when did this consensus evolve? Who helped you in the teamwork implied by "consensus"? It is only reasonable to ask for a little explanation.
Question: How and when did the the elements of agreement fall into place as you "helped form a consensus"?
  • Allegation 5: "consensus not accepted by Tenmei"
The logical inconsistency of this claim is already demonstrated; but this allegation also implies a need to inquire about "what" in addition to "how" and "when" and "who?" It is only reasonable to ask a little elaboration.
Question: What did you intend to be understood as the "consensus not accepted by Tenmei"?

Do you want ArbCom to decide that these questions have become moot because, "as of now, a consensus has been achieved at Inner Asia during the Tang dynasty, and the edit history is evidence"?

If so, before this case is closed, will you please answer one more question having to do with this general topic? I don't know what you meant in the following diff
Question: How did I violate WP:Consensus?

Teeninvestor -- If anything in this set of questions causes you to re-think what you have presented as evidence, I would not object to any modification or changes you might want to make. Please feel free to edit anything you have posted thus far.

If this is not the appropriate or best place for questions like these, I will re-post them somewhere else. --Tenmei (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teeninvestor -- Please do not find renewed cause for offense as I state plainly that your response was not helpful to me. Please, will you help me understand your explicit point-of-view by answering directly?
Question: How did I violate WP:Consensus on March 15, 2009? -- diff
Please recognize that I'm only looking for a little amplification, clarification, specificity, explanation or elaboration in whatever manner you see fit. Rejecting my question is non-responsive. Changing the subject is non-responsive. Conflating a simple question with other issues is non-responsive. Argument is non-responsive.
The text which you have mis-labeled "response" repeats a now familiar stonewalling strategy. The following excerpt at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty#Intentional disruption is only one instance of an oft-repeated gambit which did succeed in frustrating meaningful dialogue:
  • (diff) -- Teeninvestor
  • (diff) -- Teeninvestor
For redundant emphasis, I re-state a few measured sentences which you were unwilling or unable to acknowledge more than a month ago. They are no less reasonable, no less necessary today. To refresh your memory, these plain words were expressed in the last three sentences of just one diff.
In mid-March, you used ALL CAPS in the diff which followed these non-confrontational words; but I would guess that, in retrospect, the effectiveness of those ALL CAPS is diminished by the spotlight this ArbCom venue provides.
You have asked a rhetorical question below; and perhaps it will be useful to show what a direct answer to your question looks like:
Question: Okay, Tenmei have you learned anything from your previous experiences?
Answer: Yes.
Teeninvestor -- For redundant emphasis, please answer directly.
Question: How did I violate WP:Consensus on March 15, 2009? -- diff
Answer: ...?
The effectiveness of a non-responsive gambit is diminished by the spotlight this ArbCom venue provides. --Tenmei (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Okay, Tenmei have you learned anything from your previous experiences? We had already a consensus before you reached Arbitration. We had a consensus, the material in the article is correct, source is verifiable(because of link). And you have yet to disprove that! So far all you have been is disruptive to editors' work, similar to the Hyuga dispute. And please, talk in plain english. No one can understand you. Check my diffs and you will see what I mean.

Please. So far you have made an arbitration case over basically nothing. You haven't shown the source to be unverifiable, you haven't shown the content to be incorrect, (but you have showed a lot of bad behaviour, even vandalizing articles. Teeninvestor (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Tenmei

Proposed principles

I notice that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology was opened as an ArbCom case in early December 2008. The substance of the disputes in that ArbCom case are presumptively inapposite, as are those unique steps in an arbitration process which unfolded across the span of months; however, some of the proposed principles adduced from that case do appear to be relevant and applicable here. I see no good reason for reinventing the wheel when slightly modified language is readily available to assist in expediting development and review of the issues in our case. However, "Decorum" and "Avoiding apparent impropriety" seemed sufficiently alike to be combined here.

The conclusory re-statement sentence in "Purpose of Wikipedia" is copied from the first principle at the recently closed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science; and the last two sentences in "Neutrality and Sources" are copied from "Citations" in that same case.

The recently closed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand adduced three principles which bear repeating in our context: "Wikipedia editorial process," "Consensus" and the "Role of the Arbitration Committee." --Tenmei (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas – such as advocacy or propaganda and philosophical, ideological or nationalistic disputes – or to publish or promote original research is prohibited. Expressed in different words, Wikipedia has, as its primary objective, the documentation of human knowledge. In order to do so, it relies on verifiability, neutrality and on existing, reliable sources. --Tenmei (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Neutrality and conflicts of interest

2) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular view is prohibited. In particular, Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage editors contributing "in order to promote their own interests." Neutrality is non-negotiable and requires that, whatever their personal feelings, all editors must strive to (i) ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources and (ii) give prominence to such viewpoints in proportion to the weight of the source. Editors may contribute to Wikipedia only if they comply with Wikipedia's key policies. --Tenmei (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Quality of sources

3) Wikipedia articles rely mainly on reliable mainstream secondary sources as these provide the requisite analysis, interpretation and context. For this reason, academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most highly valued sources and are usually the most reliable. In contrast, self-published works, whether by an individual or an organisation, may only be used in limited circumstances and with care. Primary sources may be used to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects of these primary sources. In the event of source disputes, policy requires editors to seek consensus on articles' talk pages; if this fails, the community's Reliable Sources Noticeboard is an appropriate forum for discussion and consensus-building. --Tenmei (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Neutrality and sources

4) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional. Citations should not be used disproportionately to the prominence of the view they are citing or in a manner that conveys undue weight. Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included. --Tenmei (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Use of accounts

5) Creating accounts ("sockpuppetry") or coordinating accounts ("meatpuppetry") to manipulate the consensus process; to create alliances to reinforce a particular point of view, to engage in factional or tactical voting; to create "ownership" of articles; to evade topic bans or blocks; or to otherwise game the system, is prohibited. --Tenmei (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Decorum

6) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable. All editors should strive to avoid conduct that might appear at first sight to violate policy. Examples include an editor repeatedly editing in apparent coordination with other editors in circumstances which might give rise to reasonable but inaccurate suspicions of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. --Tenmei (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Recidivism

7) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions. --Tenmei (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Wikipedia editorial process

8) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with certain narrow exceptions. --Tenmei (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Consensus

9) Wikipedia relies on a consensus model. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process, in lieu of soapboxing, edit warring, or other inappropriate behavior. Abuse of the consensus model and process, such as misrepresenting consensus or poisoning the well, is disruptive. --Tenmei (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

10) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors. ArbCom's role extends beyond enforcement of rules to active support of other users in interpretation and application of Wikipedia policies. --Tenmei (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Deleting Mongolia during Tang rule

1) Mongolia during Tang rule, which is a redirect page, should be deleted. --Tenmei (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
It seems to be a perfectly legitimate redirect. I can see someone wanting to find out about Mongolia during Tang rule. Also, it should stay per WP:R#KEEP points 2,3, and 5. If WP:NPOV is a problem, it doesn't apply to redirects per WP:R#Neutrality of redirects. If you insist on deleting this, try taking it to Redirects for discussion later. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 13:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with Patar knight for the following reasons (which GenuineMongol, Yaan and I have partly already stated on Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. Thus I’m not a registered party of this arbitration process, but have been one during the early discussion about this article):
  • “Mongolia during Tang rule” was an anachronism from the outset. It was created (as is probably agreed upon by now) by Ms./Mr. Anonymous in an attempt to show that Mongolia always has been part of China. See here. The Mongols were a tribal confederation created in the 12th century, and before that time the word cannot apply from a historical perspective. Its continuing existence perpetuates the intention of its creator.
  • The deletion of this redirect page is not prevented by WP:R#Neutrality of redirects because this guideline suggests the deletion of redirects that aren’t common terms.
  • The deletion is not prevented by the fact that the term “Mongolia” has a non-historical use. Most people mean the Mongolian state when talking of Mongolia, thus also “Mongolia”, and they do not mean Greater Mongolia. But the military campaigns described in Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty took place in modern day Southern Mongolia (“Inner Mongolia” by the common English term), Dzungaria (part of Western Greater Mongolia), and several parts of Middle Asia that never had a Mongol population. Thus, even if someone comes up with the somewhat bizarre idea that she wants to learn something about what happened in modern-day Mongolia during the days when the Tang state was an eminent power in Middle Asia, this article doesn’t offer ANY information –if the article happens to be complete in this respect, (modern-day) “Mongolia during the Tang dynasty” and the actual “Inner Asia during the Tang dynasty” are topics that don’t have any overlapping localization in geographic space.
  • What about Wikipedia:R#KEEP? 2 doesn’t apply because the creation of an article of such a name is not accidental, but purposeful spreading of bias, and will therefore only be undertaken by people who do know what they do. 3 doesn’t apply as shown above. 5 does apply, but only to Ms./Mr. Anonymous and her/his ink, because this redirect may potentially misinform users without previous knowledge.
G Purevdorj (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to G Purevdorj,
  • It was created by a POV-pushing account, but I fail to see why the redirect cannot be useful. If someone wanted to search for the history of the current, geographical area of Mongolia during Tang rule, the redirect would help them get to the article they wanted, the one on Inner Asia.
  • At WP:R#Neutrality of redirects, it states that "If a redirect is not an established term and is unlikely to be used by searchers, it is unlikely to be useful and may reasonably be nominated for deletion." It may not be a well established term, but I can see how it can be used by searchers interested in Asian history.
  • But there will still be some people who will use Mongolia to mean Greater Mongolia, to whom the redirect would be helpful. Even if they just meant to search for historical events in the modern day nation of Mongolia during the Tang dynasty, the article seems to offer at least some information. Places mentioned in the article which seem to fall at least partially within present-day Mongolia's boundaries would include: the Gobi Desert, Eastern Gokturks Empire, Orkhon River, Khangai Mountains, and the Uyghur Khaganate.
  • The 2nd point at WP:R#KEEP, would apply, because if it was deleted, some editor might see the lack of an article, and write one which would run parallel to the Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty article, in either good or bad faith. Also, due to neutrality concerns with the redirect, the resulting article might be more objectionable than the current one we have. Rationale for 3rd point covered above. The 5th point would also apply, since people are more likely to search using a familiar term (i.e. "Mongolia duing Tang rule") than using more obscure terms (i.e. "Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty").
--Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The second Göktürk Kaghanate" was centered in Mongolia alright, but the article doesn't focus on action that took place there. So I still fear very much that a careless reader who finds this article via such a redirect will get a wrong impression on the main direction of Tang expansion qua that redirect. G Purevdorj (talk) 16:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well better that the reader gets a sense of periphery events mildly related to their search, then no information at all. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Editors reminded

(4-a) Wikipedia cannot solve any of the national, ethnic, historical, or cultural disputes that exists among the nations and peoples of Asia or any other real-world conflict. What Wikipedia can do is aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict. The contributions of all good-faith editors ensure academic integrity, which must be an indispensable priority because, unlike "simple" incivility, the damage caused by editors misquoting, plagiarizing or editorializing destroys the credibility of our encyclopedia.

(4-b) Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to utilize reliable sources and to comply with Wikipedia policies such as WP:Verifiability. A functional goal of Wikipedia is ensured to the extent that any users are able to confirm the substance of each article -- which amplifies the functional purpose of our WP:V policy and its corollaries.
(4-c) Editors are reminded to assume good faith in the contributions of all participants in our Wikipedia project, including those on the other side of the real-world disputes. This goals is furthered by writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary. --Tenmei 20:08, 2 April
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Editors counseled

(5-a) Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counseled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area. Sometimes, editors in this position may best devote some of their knowledge, interest, and effort to creating or editing other articles that may relate to the same broad subject-matter as the dispute, but are less immediately contentious.

(5-b) For example, an editor whose ethnicity, cultural heritage, or personal interests relate to Group X and who finds himself or herself caught up in edit-warring on an article about a recent war between Group X and Group Y, may wish to disengage from that article for a time and instead focus on a different aspect of the history, civilization, and cultural heritage of Group X. --Tenmei 20:08, 2 April


Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Teeninvestor

Proposed principles

Foreign-language sources

1) The use of foreign-language sources on wikipedia, when an english source is not available, is allowed. These sources must be provided with basic bibliographical information, but the original text, in the language of the source, is not required in the citations of the source, any more than English-language sources. Wikipedia sourcing policies are to be applied consistently across sources of every language.

If foreign-language sources are to require a page of text for each citation, it would prohibit their use on wikipedia and cause a great loss.

For example, the Ming dynasty article uses a Korean source as well as several Chinese sources, yet the FAC review team did not find it necessary to insist on the original text being put in the citation.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Specific diffs and/or links are needed to help establish a context in which your proposed principle can be seen to fit within a web of Wikipedia core policies. For example, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo adduced a principle of good faith acceptance of references. This presumption in our case is distinguishable by a demonstrated failure to verify and by a concurrent refusal to acknowledge a burden to verify. --Tenmei (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Editors should edit articles they have knowledge of

2) While editors' contributions are welcome anywhere, it is advised that editors should edit wikipedia articles that they have knowledge of. If an editor wishes to edit an article he/she does not have knowledge of, he/she should do research before commenting.

For example, I assume Tenmei is of good faith, but his lack of knowledge in this area has made the debate absolutely untenable. He doesn't understand the subject, and keeps on repeating himself, in a very vextatious way. If he was knowledgable in the subject, perhaps his concerns could be understood.(of course, his dubious understanding of wikipedia policies such as requiring a page of text in the original language for every citation also did not help).

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Specific diffs and/or links are needed to help establish a context in which your proposed principle can be seen to fit within a web of Wikipedia core policies. --Tenmei (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Challengers to WP:RS should do research

2) When challenging a source, editors should a)research and present a source that contradicts the information and b) point out what they think is wrong with the source.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Specific diffs and/or links are needed to help establish a context in which your proposed principle can be seen to fit within a web of Wikipedia core policies. --Tenmei (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

User Tenmei violated WP:POINT

1) User:Tenmei has violated WP:POINT in his attempt to merge Inner Asia during the Tang dynasty with the Salting the earth article. He is advised to refrain from such vandalism in the future, as shown here:diff

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Specific diffs and/or links would help to clarify and amplify your proposed finding. --Tenmei (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:

"5000 years" source reliable

2) Due to the fact the "5000 years" source used by Teeninvestor has been provided with a link and standard bibliographic information, and have not yet showed any errors, it is deemed to be a reliable source. For example, PericlesOfAthens, a very respected editor has shown it to be correct here:diff . In addition, a link has been provided diff

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Specific diffs and/or links would help to clarify and amplify proposed finding. --Tenmei (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by others:
A source can not be deemed reliable or not independent on the facts it is used to source. Taemyr (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:Tenmei should make himself clear

1) Whatever the outcome I feel user:Tenmei should try to simplify his language, so it can fit in with WP:TLDR. His language is highly confusing and does not convey the message he wants. He is very difficult to understand. It is not just me who thinks so; see this post by another editor in 3O: diff

He just showed below how he can't make himself clear.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by Tenmei: This specific proposal should be stricken. The proposal incorporates a logical fallacy. Teeninvestor contrives a false dichotomy in an effort to distract attention from a more central problem.
The idiomatic common sense which is implied in "it takes two to tango" ignores other dances; and yet, on further reflection, it becomes evident that not every collaborative activity is best compared to a tango rather than some other dance. The idiom does recognize that there are certain activities which cannot be achieved singly -- like communicating and like editing Wikipedia. This idiomatic expression -- like Teeninvestor's proposal -- presumes it is irrelevant to parse a collaborative activity.
The proposal begins with a faulty premise -- presuming that it is irrelevant to investigate whether Teeninvestor is unwilling or unable to work collaboratively.
Assuming arguendo that my writing is unconventional, non-standard -- then what? The nature of Teeninvestor's commitment to partnership in communication would remain critical regardless of whether I succeeded entirely -- or failed utterly, or whether I partly failed and partly succeeded in shouldering my share of burdens in the work of editing Wikipedia?
"Inability" to work collaboratively
In the absence of diffs which document and confirm attempts by Teeninvestor to resolve a perceived inability to work collaboratively with Tenmei and others, this proposal is naught but hollow words. If, as this proposal implies, the overwhelming problems are to be adduced from my writing, then these proofs would have accumulated along with the serial evidence of Teeninvestor's requests for for a little amplification, clarification, specificity, explanation or elaboration. A record barren of requests for clarification or explanation is revealing; and Teeninvestor contribution history stands on its own, regardless of anything and everything I will have done. Curiously, Teeninvestor alone manages to disprove the legitimacy of his/her meaningless allegation.
"Unwillingness" to work collaboratively
In a search for evidence of Teeninvestor's unwillingness to work collaboratively with Tenmei and others, the demonstrative examples are manifold:
The argument about "unwillingness" to work collaboratively is condensed in the illustrative diffs presented in a thread found elsewhere on this page:
In the above-listed threads, Teeninvestor created problems which did not need to be problems; and Teeninvestor exacerbated problems which could have been mitigated. In the context created by Teeninvestor's contributions, the edit history shows a perverse campaign to ensure that collaborative communication failed; and this series of diffs which were undertaken to achieve an arguably disruptive goal is more fully documented in the edit histories which preceded the opening of this ArbCom case:
For these reasons, this specific proposal should be discarded. --Tenmei (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Codicil: Yes, in this diff, Teeninvestor is demonstrably unwilling -- which implies a mere matter of choice, as in
This proposal has little or nothing to do with unable or inability to make sense out of my writing -- little to do with me at all.
Teeninvestor is not shown to be unwilling to engage in collaborative work; rather, we may infer that his/her arguments here and elsewhere are informed by experiences in which a feigned inability to understand appeared to be affirmed by the wiki-community, validated as an acceptable tactic ....
Q.E.D. --Tenmei (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tenmei should learn WP:CIVIL

2) User:Tenmei has shown himself unable to assume WP:CIVIL As he entered the debate, the first thing he used to describe other editors was "toxic warrior". In addition, he strikes out others' comments, a highly unpolite gesture on wikipedia. His attempted "merge" with salting the earth was almost pure vandalism. these links can illustrate my concerns: link [diff diff diff diff

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

User:Tenmei should not abuse the dispute resolution process

Rather than gaining consensus, User:Tenmei has abused the dispute resolution process in order to get his way. He should be warned to cease and desist from this activity as this simply hounds other editors and is a form of disruption. My concerns can be show by the following links: diff diff Other users' concerns about him abusing the dispute resolution process: diff diff

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Z

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

General discussion

Prior ArbCom cases

In 2008-2009, issues similar to the ones in our case were subjected to ArbCom scrutiny.

In terms of our case, (a) there appears to be little congruence between the encyclopedic topics above and our case; and (b) there appears to be no duplication amongst the parties. The sole relevant similarities in the locus of dispute appear to be Mongolia and issues having to do with ensuring the academic integrity of Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty and the reliability of Wikipedia generally. --Tenmei (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

Restatement: What does "verifiability" mean?

I have done everything I can to bring core policies to the forefront of my participation in Wikipedia. Rather than succeeding in this effort, I appear to have failed in all efforts to invite Teeninvestor to engage meaningfully in parsing any core issues.

The nine true/false questions which follow were derived from text at Wikipedia:Citing sources#When to cite sources:

  • True___ False ___ A. Wikipedia is by its very nature a work by people with widely different knowledge and skills?
  • True___ False ___ B. The reader needs to be assured that the material within it is reliable?
  • True___ False ___ C. Each fact in an article must be concretely verifiable = WP:V?

The purpose of citing sources is:

I construe it as fundamental that the answer to every one of the above-listed true/false questions has to be the same; and at the same time, it seems fair to conclude that Teeninvestor is asserting principles and policies which quite at variance with what I would have described as self-evident, obvious, easy.

What parts of the above are inessential? optional? unimportant?

This is not a set of rhetorical questions; rather, this seems to have evolved into a needlessly difficult set of practical problems. For example, conflating unverifiable ≠ unverified presents a straw man controversy in our context.

Bottom line: In the face of the chasm between my answers to the true/false questions above and the analysis Teeninvestor expressly espouses, the question for me becomes one of figuring out what to respond differently, more effectively, more constructively than I have managed to do thus far. --Tenmei (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability archives

Questions about the use of non-English sources in ways which are consistent with WP:V are the subject of the following archived discussion threads:

The following threads focus on WP:V issues using Dutch, Norwegian, and French sources:

These links may be plausibly relevant or useful in the process of resolving the issues presented by our case. --Tenmei (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:

Tenmei- note that in all cases the source was accepted as verified with standard bibliographic information, just like this one. For example, in the link about Norwegian sources, it is stated very clearly that verifiability is "verifiability in principle", not instant verifiability for every reader.Teeninvestor (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

{topic}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tang_Dynasty/Workshop&oldid=285295029"