Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Evidence

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

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

500 words is a strict limit?

Since this is my first (only? God willing) time at Arbcom, I just want to be sure that the 500 words is a strict limit. I'm at just over 700 (w/24 diffs) and can't figure out what to cut. If it's a strict limit, I'll find some way, but if it's more of a target, I'd rather stay up around my current number. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally some lattitude is allowed, though obviously within reasonable limits. Important points tend to get lost in overly verbose statements, so keep to the essential is my advice. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 13:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should define this "reasonable limit" then, because that sounds rather arbitrary. 600? 700? 1000? How about diffs? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer the use of discretionary. If you want a hard and fast limit, it is 500 words and 50 diffs. However, clerks are not going to start refactoring at 501 words as we are expected to use our judgement in these matters, especially if it means that essential evidence cannot be presented. If a statement appears excessive, then I'll drop a polite note on the party's talkpage and work with them to reduce it to within acceptable limits. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had Alexandr Dmitri review my evidence prior to posting, and he felt it was acceptable in length, even though it's a little over 700 words. My apologies; I couldn't figure out a way to cut it shorter and still provide at least a minimal amount of context for all 4 people I wanted to comment about. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Late submission

Unfortunately, a situation has come up in the family and I will be unavailable for the next few days. I knew about it earlier, but the timing keeps changing (funeral for a highly unexpected death... planning it has been off-the-cuff). As such, I'm not going to be able to present any evidence at this time.

However, I would really appreciate if ArbCom could grant me a few days extension.

If not, I will have access to my mobile phone and network, so I will be able to prepare a very short statement, but it probably won't have any diffs. I don't know if ArbCom accepts those or not. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Magog. Whenever you're back, could you let us know and we'll work out whether it is still feasible for you to collate diffs and submit evidence. It shouldnt be a problem for you to add evidence in the next week or a bit longer. Take care, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the second drafter, I agree with John Vandenberg. Real life comes first, especially in this circumstance, and a reasonable additional time will certainly be granted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I will write up the draft today, given time availability; if not, then I'll get it tomorrow or Monday at the latest. But I don't expect it to go beyond tomorrow (I am not hugely busy tomorrow). Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for all your patience; I really just became crazy IRL busy. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from the Mediation Committee

On behalf of the Mediation Committee, I reaffirm our perpetual intention to prevent all communications during formal mediation from being used in subsequent arbitration proceedings, while not protecting "users who deliberately disrupt and subvert official dispute resolution" nor "allow its policies to be abused to protect bad-faith actions" (WP:MC/P#The privileged nature of mediation). With the other mediators, we have decided that, in relation to the proceedings of our Senkaku Islands case, to preserve the Privilege, there is no reason to blank and delete any pages other than the mediation case talk page and archives. Specifically, discussions between individual parties or between the mediator and a party, on user talk pages, will not be covered by the Privilege.

The Mediation Committee makes no statement about any claims of misconduct by the mediator who was assigned to the case, and we would view such an allegation are incorrect (and possibly frivolous). However, if the Arbitration Committee does pursue that line of enquiry, we will publish a relevant statement as formal Evidence (upon request to the MedCom mailing list). Lastly, if the arbitrators require any other information from the mediators, please contact us on the usual address.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 12:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Evidence presented by Magog the Ogre

May I make my such response here? If not, please let me know and I will remove it and put where it should be. It is a pain for me to have to make this response because I ever respected Magog the Ogre before, and some parts of Evidence presented by Magog are so incorrect but quite subtle that I have to respond.

Re his "Background - my involvement": Who changed? Magog once was neutral as a neutral administrator for the page "Senkaku Islands dispute", but he has not been neutral any more since Qwyrxian returned from Q's "wiki topic break" on August 2, 2011 (UTC). Frankly, now he has behaved on the topic in question as if he did so for Qwyrxian. In Elen's talk page when discussing the case I was blocked but Tenmei was not, I said some odd might happen that made Magog changed [1]. E.g. although user Bobthefish2 made some comment about him at other's talk page not appropriate/necessary [2], Magog didn't complain it nor criticized Bob that time. Magog and Bob had had benign talk exchanges [3] between July 23 and July 30. But on 07:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC), 2 days after Qwyrxian's return, Magog suddenly started to blame Bob (here not meaning I agree on everything Bob did). Several hours later, on 16:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC) Tenmei made his edit violating the sanction applied by Magog (more detail as below). Contrast to how tough Magog blamed Tenmei [4] when invoking IAR to apply this sanction and how tough Magog applied his sanction to block me on July 22, he did not respond my 4 reports until 31 hours later, and gave a soft treatment to Tenmei by declaring his decision that Tenmei did not violate his sanction. In his Evidence, Magog claimed that my attitude toward him or his action changed due to Bob's tactic [5]. No, that is due to Magog's changes. When I said "confused and disappointed" (emphasis added) to his decision on Tenmei's violation, I politely expressed my opposition and disagreement.[reply]

Re: his BRD sanction blocking me but not blocking Tenmei [6]. A single/unitary standard shall be used for justice. Magog argued he did both correctly, against Elen's opinion that he did both wrong. Bottom line: he must have at least done one thing wrong but not both correct as I initially expressed in Elen's talk page [7] when using either one of his BRD standards (as he has used two in fact: tough one and soft one). Had he used the very tough one that was for blocking me, for Tenmei's edit he should have blocked Tenmei swiftly too. Key point: in his subpage Magog said "3 days later, and with no intermediate edits, Tenmei made another edit. Tenmei didn't commit a BRD violation - ...". The fact: 3 days later the discussion was still ongoing because Qwyrxian had joined in as Tenmei's partner and I had to talk with Q first [8] by following BRD's Talk with one or at most two partners at once. Also this "D" was exactly started by Tenmei after his "R", he should have had to include his version he actually did 3 days later [9] in the "D" for discussing and waiting for the discussion fully finished and satisfied to see which version could be used for starting next "B". Tenmei broke the "D" as "D". Magog's tough standard did not allow "BRD" → "BRD", so Magog should have blocked Tenmei. Magog was wrong for not doing so. I had accepted his blocking me because trusted him to use this tough standard to every one, but he did not.

Had Magog used the very soft one by which he explained why Tenmei didn't break his BRD sanction, he should not have blocked me: with this soft standard John Smith's did not do an "R" (for not totally same as before nor indicating "R" in his edit summary, and adding a template asking RS) although he claimed, and I did not do an "R" either (for key words changed and RS added), here were only "B" → "B" → "B", no "R". So I was mistakenly blocked. As Tenmei cannot be retroactively blocked using the tough standard, the only possibility to correct this mistake is using the soft standard to correct the block on my account. The true consequence of using these double standards is Tenmei became bolder and bolder to break Magog's sanction and Magog still refused to recognize his violation when I reported [10] until Qwyrxian asked Magog to protect the page and started this RfAr [11]. --Lvhis (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't see his subpage User:Magog_the_Ogre/Senkaku_Arbitration_-_BRD_instance, Magog circumvented the word/diff limit by stashing content there.

What I find disturbing is that he totally twisted our words, went on a tirade, and then suggested a block over all this (especially when he advocated a 1 year block for you). To be honest, I've never said you did not deserve that BRD block and I don't think you ever really tried to make a case about that after your unblock appeal. To my understanding, we were both just pushing for a uniform standard of law enforcement.

Admins with this kind of ethic is just meh... --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just like all your personal attacks aren't direct, no, you just managed to imply it, and never disabused your ally Lvhis of the notion when he brought it up in the very conversations in which you were taking part (instead, just repeating and repeating and repeating your grievances against myself and Q) see. Yawn. If you want to change your evidence or create your own subpage to counter my claims, feel free. But I trust naturally that you will continue to wikilawyer and find an excuse to accuse me, rather than actually address the substance, as is your style, not the least of which reason is that you know that my version of events is entirely correct and your trolling has been exposed for what it is. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's some BATTLEGROUND and ABF there, Magog. I don't think I wiki-lawyered, as I was really just commenting on facts and a substantiated observation of abuse. I am sorry you consider my inquiry into your actions as trolling. If you actually stop wearing your coloured lens, much of what I wrote to you during that dispute was genuinely polite (including the smilies you complained about). And also, you really were my favourite admin because I thought you had a funny badass attitude that I considered to be cool. But unfortunately, that attitude turned out not to be backed up with humility and sound judgement. Looking back, you could've diffused the situation if you acknowledged your mistake and blocked Tenmei.

By the way, I would like to reiterate again that I've never ever said Lvhis did not deserve his BRD-induced block. If you felt I implied it because I assisted him in critiquing your stubbornly incorrect assessment on Tenmei's misconduct, then you might as well complain that I also implied that everyone here eats babies. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A small correction to the above. Lvhis states " until Qwyrxian asked Magog to protect the page" with a link; actually, if you read the link, I asked Magog to block Tenmei, not protect the page. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did I misunderstand something?

At this point, I still recommend a block of Tenmei (probably 24 hours, to match the block of Lvhis; alternatively, 48 hours, if you think it should escalate across the dispute rather than per person), and I recommend fully protecting the page, since multiple users have shown themselves unable to either understand or abide by the principle you advanced... -- Qwyrxian

--Bobthefish2 (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right; I'm getting old and/or tired and/or foolish--I didn't remember requesting the page lock, only the blocking of Tenmei, and so when I read that sentence on the link, I didn't keep reading to the end of my section. I guess my main point was that I didn't request a protection in lieu of blocking--I thought then and think now that Magog should have blocked Tenmei, which, in fact, Magog also said. I've struck out my comment above. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content of a cited guideline was changed by an involved party

I just realized that user:Oda Mari, an involved party in this Arb case initiated changes in the content of the guideline WP:NCGN#Multiple local names that I mentioned and cited in my Statement, Evidence, and my proposal in Workshop there. And the example "Liancourt Rocks" there was also raised by Penwhale and Zscout370 in their statements. Oda Mari challenged this guideline in her Evidence (her historic version). Now Oda Mari changed this guideline whose pre-exist content did not favor her stance into a version that is less unfavorable for her stance (the difference of the two versions), and changed a key word in her evidence accordingly (the updated version of her Evidence). The verifiability of the content after such change is questionable. So there are 3 problems here:

An involved party initiated a change of a guideline that is tightly related an ongoing Arbitration case.
The verifiability of the content after such change (becoming "in part because ..., in part because ...") is questionable.
It may trigger edit-dispute or edit-war if other parties try to dispute and revert such change for that guideline.

Is Oda Mari's such guideline-editing during Arbitration process allowable? On my understanding, her such change may not be appropriate because Arbitration is as said "The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines" stated in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Policy and precedent. --Lvhis (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am not familiar with the Liancourt Rocks dispute (i.e. Oda Mari can be right or wrong). While one can argue that Oda Mari is simply going through with a BRD cycle, her action is not very appropriate given our special circumstances. Some of the main issues are raised below:

The original pre-modified content was cited by other parties and Oda Mari (who did not like the content) made changes it without first consulting other involved parties of the ArbCom case or the Liancourt Rocks editors.
Oda Mari only consulted opinion of one uninvolved user in NCGN who knew nothing of the Liancourt Rocks topic. That same user later expressed doubts to Oda Mari's changes [12].

This type of behaviour is similar to what John Smith's (see #2 in here [13]) did with the "Taiwanese are not Chinese" topic where he also tinkered with content cited by other people without notifying them. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously some people are moving the goalposts underhandedly. I'm appalled! STSC (talk) 04:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She didn't change the guideline, she just clarified the reasoning behind it. Cla68 (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason she claimed is very questionable. And I think involved parties in a Arb case shall recuse from editing or involving editing related policies and guidelines. Otherwise, the Arb process can be messed up.--Lvhis (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think she did change the guideline in some way... since she changed the conditions at which one particular example is accepted. If my memory serves, some decisions are based on the concept of following precedence. -Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She has changed the wording in the guideline based on her own POV, it is totally unacceptable. STSC (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lvhis, even if you didn't notice my talk with Zscout370 and Penwhale on the SI talk page, you must have read my evidence. In spite of my argument, you obstinately made a proposal based on the misleading and inaccurate description of LR on the NCGC. That was why I pointed out that the description was totally wrong on the NCGC talk page as the wrong description should be corrected and I didn't want arbitrators and editors to misunderstand about LR. At least you should have checked if my argument was groundless or not. It's been always you who is "IDIDN'THEARTHAT". I did nothing wrong. Oda Mari (talk) 05:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lvhis, Bobthefish2, and STSC, Oda Mari waited a week after posting the suggestion on the guideline talk page before making the edit. There is nothing wrong with doing things that way. Cla68 (talk) 05:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While one can explain her actions as following BRD, you should realize that this is an ArbCom case and she is directly tinkering with evidence that other parties cited without even making the effort to notify them or members of the Liancourt editorial team. And in the end, the person who discussed with her didn't actually agree with the accuracy of her changes. This sounds sloppy and a bit shady. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Oda Mari, I of course have read the talk and I even made my comment there. Both Penwale and Zscout370 replied you as they did not agree on something like "USA-G POV" and LR case did not follow such POV as Zscout370 implied [14]. See below:

I disagree with PI. It's not only a common name but also it's against "Use modern names". Besides, unlike Liancourt Rocks, PI is not approved by United States Board on Geographic Names. They approve Senkaku. Check it for yourself. [3] As far as I know, Australia, UK, and USA use Senkaku Shoto on their nautical charts. If the title is biased, the US government would be biased too. See the map. I think the Google search of almost all news stories and studies are meaningless as long as they deal with the dispute. As a matter of course, they use both names as a part of basic information on the islands. @Penwhale, it seems you didn't notice this. Please answer me. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 09:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Implicitly, neither PRC nor ROC would approve. However, I mentioned that CNN and Google are using both within article text/on the map, and this cannnot be done in a page title. And technically, using United States Board on Geographic Names as a point isn't correct since it doesn't represent a worldwide view. - Penwhale^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 15:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that is absolutely true. --Lvhis (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Because when one US Government agency went from Dokdo to Laincourt, President Bush struck back and forced the name back to Dokdo and make it Korean owned source. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

@Cla68, firstly as the Clerk Alexandr Dmitri pointed that "in principle that changes in guidelines upon which one relies in dispute resolution are generally to be avoided"; and as the 2nd point Oda Mari should have revealed her such intent in this Arb Evidence talk page instead of only posting at that talk page because no body here even thought of changing pertaining policies and guidelines to make them fit own POV during Arbitration procedure. If this action can be an acceptable precedent, I believe every involved party in any Arb case can follow and that will be a nightmare for ArbCom. --Lvhis (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobthefish2. You seemed to miss my reply to Zscout370. [15]
@Lvhis. I informed you about the change. [16] If you did not make the proposal, I would not have posted my suggestion on the NCGN talk page. Oda Mari (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Oda Mari, you informed me after you had done that, and then I went there and was aware what had occurred, and had to change the links to that guideline in all my inputs to the historical version accordingly as to fairly reflect the version at the time when this Arb case opened, and reported to the Clerk, and made the new section for this as following the Clerk's instruction. Anyway, Arbitrators are watching us, including our behaviors during the Arb procedure. --Lvhis (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to quote me, please quote me in full. I actually said "Whilst I agree in principle that changes in guidelines upon which one relies in dispute resolution are generally to be avoided, unless I am missing something, the changes are simple alterations of grammatical tense, and as such, do not alter the meaning substantially in either instance.". The words that were omitted above (in bold for emphasis here) rather change the substance of what I said. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't know you two had a conversation on this. However, I'd point out that the changes are not simply grammatical, but there are also subtle semantic implications. See this discussion [17].

Aside: I did not notice the arguments of this ArbCom case spilled over to the link I provided until I wrote this post. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Kuril Islands

(moved from the Evidence section)

Kuril is not a Russian name. It's originated from the local islanders' language.
Only 4 out of 56 islands in Kuril Islands are in dispute.

STSC (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]