Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hersfold (talk | contribs) at 02:46, 10 December 2009 (→‎Request to amend prior case: Tang Dynasty: fix header). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Statements from uninvolved editors at case opening

Statement by Til Eulenspiegel

I was requested to comment. My only encounter with User:Tenmei is at Talk:Salting the earth which he filled with bizarre proposals to merge that article with "Asia during the Tang Dynasty" or whatever it is. There is no mention in the article Salting the earth whatsoever of the Tang Dynasty, nor has he made clear any context for merging these two unrelated articles. Because of the lack of context, I took this as disruptive and deleted most of his lengthy additions to the talkpage. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Yaan

I think there are two somewhat separate problems here. One is that there is some trolling going on by an anonymous IP (the one who created the article in the first place). I think previous statements of this IP are clear enough to rule out WP:AGF, even if some editors in the AfD discussion did think otherwise.

The other problem is that the academic credentials of the source used by User:Teeninvestor are unclear and that Teeninvestor has made no attempt to deal with this. Maybe because both Teeninvestor and Tenmei were a bit too involved in their conflict to clear this isssue up. I am aware this is a problem of a lot of WP articles, but I think it really is the burden of the contributor who introduces a source to give evidence why it is relevant, at least in the case of disputes. I don't really think Teeninvestor is misrepresenting his source, certainly not consciously. But that still leaves open the question who the authors of his source are: amateur historians, local politicians, or maybe experts who studied Central Asia in the 7th century for all their life? It is also unclear what kind of source is used, secondary or tertiary. I don't think asking for clarifications on that matter and treating stuff as unsourced if no clarification is forthcoming is inappropriate. Yaan (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Caspian blue

I will leave my opinion for arbitrators to figure out what is a problem and "who are the involved parties". First, this can be shown as a nationalistic dispute between China and Mongol, or a failure to abide by principle rules such as WP:Edit war, WP:AGF, WP:Civil, WP:NPA, WP:Own, WP:V, etc. But the request may be a due course because nothing was sorted out after tendentious edit warring and disruption were happening since the creation of the article. Tenmei and Teeninvester both violated 3RR (4RR ~ 6RR), but no admin did enforce to them for probably the lengthy, and weird report.

The selection of the involved editors are also odd and totally excludes Mongolian editors and others who actively participated in this dispute such as Gantuya eng (talk · contribs)[1], GenuineMongol (talk · contribs)[2], and G Purevdorj (talk · contribs)[3] (see: AFD). All of three should appear here to give their opinion as the "involved party" for ArbCom to decide whether to pursue to the case. In fact, Kraftlos, PericlesofAthens, and Arilang1234 were not involved at all, but the latter two just came to give "3rd opinion" per Teeninvest's request to turn down the flame for his stance[4][5]. Though the two are members of WP:WikiProject China and colleagues of Tenninvester. The meditation attempt was failed because of Teeninvester's unwillingness and Tenmei's failure to communicate civilly. So at least, RFC/3O/Mediation were tried except RFC/U before the request.

It should be noted that the creator of the article, Sarsfs (talk · contribs) and NYC Verizon anons[6] are likely a sock of banned troll, ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who has caused "big troubles" to East Asian subjects and harassed editors.[7] Given the extreme Pro-Han Chinese agenda[8], abusive sockpuppeter (over 200 socks), and harassment, I don't think he gives up appearing to the article(see:1, 2, 3, 4, 5 6)

As for the contested Chinese books, I can confirm notability of only one book, Outlines of the History of the Chinese ISBN 7538700420 written by Bo Yang who was a very famous Taiwanese author with a radical political view. Translated versions of the book are sold in other countries.([9]review) However, the problem is lied in the other book "5000 years of Chinese history" (中华五千年) written by Li Bo and Zheng Yin, that is primarily used for Teeninvester's claimed contents. I can't find any review nor information from "reliable news or sites" in any language except advertising sites. The two authors do not seem like notable too according to g-hits/books/scholar/news. I doubt that Nlu would help out because he does not seem to care about nationalistic feuds, and tends to use just Chinese primary sources for his articles.

Plus, everyone point finger at each other's behaviors on the article and AfD (eg. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) so I recommend Arbitrators to look into both content disputes and behaviors of the involved editors if you take the case. I doubt that this dispute can be resolved in other venues(WP:ANI/WP:RSN/WP:WQA) because of the sock's constant trolling, the involved editors' too long-winged and endless arguments, dismissals to the request for verifying sources, ensuing disruptions to other articles and bickering each other as well as edit wars.--Caspian blue 22:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • To Cool Hand Luke I did not intend to add more to here, but contents from the contested book have been added to 13 articles including even FA article such as Ming Dynasty by Teeninvester[10][11] and the banned user for over the past months. The source was already brought up to WP:RSN/Archive28 for its questionable reliability. Some of them, Qing and Yuan Dynasties debate and Comparison between Roman and Han Empires remind me of a RfAr case. If the two articles do not have the book source, 1/3 of or whole contents would be gone. As for what is the behavioral problem questioned by Cool luke Hand, I think the two main user have enough shown it on this page.--Caspian blue 20:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Sam Blacketer I think I said the banned user is one of factors that make hard to resolve the dispute. --Caspian blue 15:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Ncmvocalist I think you just said about "general procedures", not about "the actual disputes".--Caspian blue 15:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gun Powder Ma

Clerk note: moved from arbitrator-only section. Daniel (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Several users have been notified of this debate to "help with this dispute": Example and overview Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

View by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

I consider that despite there being clear claims that problem editing is occurring, the attempts at dispute resolution have been inadequate. Yes, RfC/U (like all other conduct parts of our DR system) would be a waste of time here. However, the fact that mediation fails does not mean that article RfC has also - and I see no justification to avoid trying this avenue before trying other avenues to get sanctions.

One of the biggest issues with accepting a case prematurely is this: ArbCom will consider things that shouldn't be considered when looking for sanctions at this point. Things aren't done as they should be by editors heavily involved in a dispute for a variety of reasons, and things aren't as they appear (eg; edit-summaries aren't accurate to the t, some things that needn't have been reverted end up reverted, accusations are thrown around, etc. etc. - but these are relatively minor costs that should be given an allowance, if and when there are strong attempts to attack the larger issue of the problem editing).

Unfortunately, this makes it very difficult to know when such attempts are being made, or in distinguishing between the problem editor and the editor who just needs a lot more time to get settled with certain conventions (like editing with a cooler head). Unfortunately, poor decisions can also emerge. Problem editors may do just enough to end up with no to light sanctions, compared to the editor who actually was combatting a much bigger problem to help the more important quality of the project. I would rather not make the decision until there is enough to at least have a better chance of getting to the right overall outcome. Even I am having trouble making some of the more complex distinctions right now.

I am appreciative of the proportion who voted to accept to address problem editing, among other issues. That is certainly what I would want usually. But I agree with Sam's last sentence. And as for the reasons specified as to why this dispute cannot be resolved in other venues (which may usually justify acceptance), true resolution cannot be found by accepting an arbcom case at this point. I do not want to see editors sanctioned or banned when they shouldn't be, and I don't want the opposite of this to happen either. I'm lost as to where this will go when enough distinctions are still unclear.

Letting the dispute continue without intervention would certainly let it fester some more, but it may be the only way here: other avenues need to be exhausted so that, hopefully, a clearer picture can be painted on all those involved. In the interests of ensuring we don't punish or lose really valuable contributors (who wade into waters that some others would stay away from), my view is that the case needs to be declined for now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Penwhale

I suppose I could point out a few things. In the JQCQ link to the book, there was no author listed; the names listed were rather translators. I personally have some issue with the description of the book given by the site, however; 爱国主义 means nationalism/patriotism, and the two volumes only cover up to the First Opium War (meaning it does not cover anything post-Qing Dynasty. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 22:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to above comment

What is more troubling is that depending on usage, 爱国主义 could also mean jingoism. In addition, while looking at the userpages, User:Teeninvestor is a Chinese, while User:Tenmei is heavily involved in Japanese articles. This could be a point of contention. SYSS Mouse (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to amend prior case: Tang Dynasty

Initiated by Tenmei (talk) at 00:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected
Tang Dynasty arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Principles -- The procedure by which the principles were developed was arbitrary & unclear; and despite my explaining more than once that the outcome was not understood, no follow-up ensued and I was told simply to wait.
  2. Finding -- The process by which the findings were adduced was arbitrary & unclear; and despite my explaining more than once that the outcome was not understood, no follow-up ensued and I was told simply to wait.
  3. Remedy -- How the remedies were contrived doesn't matter to me; however, what does matter is that despite my explaining more than once that the outcome was not understood, no follow-up ensued and I was told simply to wait. Now, to my bitter surprise, John Vandenberg declares my words "inflammatory" in the edit summary which accompanied the deletion of the Restatement's addenda here.
Talk:Order of Culture#Restatement
My contributions to this not-very-complicated thread have been informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point in a predicatbly escalating drama:
  • 1. What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
  • 2. What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does each cited source reflect that consensus?
  • 3. Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
  • 4. Are unsourced assertions being used?
Can't we agree that this provides a commonly accepted foundation for our work together. --Tenmei (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addenda: President Obama's remarks in Beijing were filmed by China Central Television and excerpts were re-broadcast. In my view, a paraphrase of one paragraph would seem constructive in the context created by Dekimasu's comment below. Obama observed, "There is a Chinese proverb: Consider the past, and you shall know the future. Surely, we have known setbacks and challenges ... [but] the notion that we must be adversaries is not predestined -- not when we consider the past .... build[ing] upon our mutual interests, and engag[ing] on the basis of mutual respect." [emphasis added]
-- The White House, Office of the Press Secretary: "Remarks by President Barak Obama at Town Hall Meeting with Future Chinese Leaders, Museum of Science and Technology, Shanghai, China," November 16, 2009.
Caspian blue -- I wonder if a 19th century, American-English idiomatic phrase may be helpful here? a step in a constructive direction? I wonder if it might be seen as ameliorative to state bluntly that you are barking up the wrong tree. --Tenmei (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also Barking up the wrong tree.--Tenmei (talk) 06:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of "Involved parties" (permanent link)
  1. Tenmei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
  2. Teeninvestor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. Kraftlos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  4. PericlesofAthens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  5. Arilang1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Confirmation that the "involved parties" are aware of this request
Confirmation that other contributors to Evidence or Workshop pages are also aware

Amend this case by annulment

Statement by Tenmei

  • A. This case was renamed "Tang Dynasty" for ArbCom's convenience only. I projected that the consequences would become unworkable, as I tried to clarify in in a response to John Vandenberg before the case was accepted here:
The issues here are quickly devalued and the focus is easily distracted. This is evidenced by Teeninvestor's hollow POV-argument below and in that argument's tentative acceptance by Wizardman, who seems initially inclined to construe a "content dispute" in the empty sound of one hand clapping.
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.

Issues #1, #2 and #3 do happen to involve a Chinese language text, but the disruptive views which are affirmed below by Teeninvestor are independent of any specific content or language. In the narrow context of the three inter-related issues, the presumed need for a "Chinese-literate" consultant would seem unjustified; and yet, Newyorkbrad and Coren both endorse this notion.

Opinions such as these demonstrate that, despite its obvious clumsiness, the unconventional composite "Verifiability/Use English/Burdens" does need to remain part of the title in order to underscore explicit non-content-related issues. For redundant clarity, I intend that "Verifiability"=WP:Verifiability; "Use English:=WP:Verifiability#Sources (Non-English sources); and "Burden"=WP:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. No one disputes that my wording is awkward, but the development of this thread reveals that Issues #1, #2 and #3 are readily conflated with distracting corollary matters.
In view of what others have posted, I endorse changing the title to read
Verifiability/Use English/Burdens conflated with content issues
In this analysis of Issues #1, #2 and #3, there is no opportunity to perceive a content-specific POV. Nor is there anything to do with WP:NPOV. Nor does it matter whether Teeninvestor's proffered text was published in Urdu, Wolof, Navajo or Chinese. I'm mindful of Wikipedia:Silence and consensus; but my restraint in responding thus far should not be taken to imply qui tacet consentire videtur ("He who remains silent is understood to consent"). --Tenmei (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • B. This case evolved into a Gordian Knot, which ArbCom only made worse as too many disparate issues were conflated. The procedural flaws rendered meaningless whatever procedures normally apply in other cases:
  • Clerks answered no questions about (a) the locus of dispute, (b) the names of the parties, nor (c) the procedures; nor were alternate procedures for seeking clarification proposed or permitted
  • ArbCom responded to no motion proposed by the parties in order to clarify the locus of dispute and the parties (a) the locus of dispute, (b) the names of the parties, nor (c) the procedures; nor were alternate procedures for seeking clarification proposed or permitted.
  • ArbCom and the parties explicitly identified problems in understanding Tenmei's contributions to evidence, workshop and proposed decision pages; but no alternate pre-decisional procedures for seeking clarification were proposed or permitted. Even as core issues moved towards resolution here, ArbCom snatched failure from the jaws of success, e.g.,
<font=dark blue>Summarizing "more or less the entire dispute"
Teeninvestor's summary and questions at User talk:Newyorkbrad deserve special emphasis. They serve as demonstrable proof that our non-standard ArbCom case has been a constructive exercise.

In this diff (16 May), the work invested in ArbCom evidence and workshop pages is shown to have been worthwhile.

In the ArbCom process, Teeninvestor's conception of the issues has been distilled to produce these few sentences:

"[C]an I ask you a policy question relating to this case. User:Tenmei seems to claim that citing your sources does not make you comply with WP:V, as shown here. diff. I couldn't make out any of his other claims because of WP:TLDR. Being confused, I'd like to ask: Does citing your sources make you comply with WP:V? I ask this question just to get a clear and official judgement from an experienced arbitrator, as this is more or less the entire dispute."
Trajectory of John Vandenberg's constructive suggestion which missed the mark -- a lesson not unheeded by Tenmei?
  • C. Post-decision, I posted and User:FloNight blanked the following:
"ArbCom fails when, at the end of any ArbCom case, parties are left uncomprehending. In the final analysis, the modest remedies of this ArbCom decision are no burden. I don't need to understand or agree in order to comply. However, until I can discern a relationship between the adduced principles and findings of fact, I can't accept this decision. I can't move on.

"I feel cheated because I can't square the adduced principles and findings of fact with explicit core policies. This sense of being tricked is exacerbated by my inability to assess the impact of issues which were not addressed because I didn't know that the locus of dispute had been changed nor did I know that the scope had been enlarged.

"This lingering uncertainty affects every aspect of my Wikipedia participation going foreward; and the difficulty is amplified because I'm deprived of formerly meaningful wiki-catchwords and wiki-terms which might have otherwise helped me to evaluate what happened. I'm forced to guess that the decision-making was affected by other factors which remain unknowable; and that's impossible to parse."

  • D. Post-decision, non-party Caspian blue was encompassed in the remedies because of something not clearly specified or understood or explained in Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Proposed decision, e.g., Tenmei is instructed not to interact with or comment with regard toTeeninvestor or Caspian blue on any page of Wikipedia (except in the course of legitimate dispute resolution initiated by others, if necessary, and in that case subject to remedy 2 below). [underlining added] In the post-decision talk page threads, I knew who was pushing for punishment; but I neither understood nor had any input into (a) the locus of this coda dispute, nor (c) the ad hoc procedures which excluded me entirely; nor were alternate procedures for seeking clarification proposed or permitted.
  • E. Although ArbCom did announce plans to find volunteers to explain what I did not understand, but no one willing to assist me in figuring out what happened has yet been found. My continuing need to know is not because of a chip on shoulder, nor because I'm mindlessly flogging a dead horse, nor am I seeking to make a mountain out of a molehill.
  • F. I have learned the hard way that I am stigmatized as if the objective of this process were designed to contrive a class of wiki-felons; and at the same time, I am without the requisite understanding and comprehension which is essential to avoid recidivism.
  • G. I have repeatedly sought further explanations from ArbCom, but none were forthcoming, although I was encouraged to wait patiently; and now User:FloNight implies that this is never part of a process because "the posting of the Final Decision is the natural ending point for when arbitrators stop discussing the case with the involved parties" [underlilning added] -- see here.
  • H.The process and procedures which led to a decision was arbitrary and unclear. The flaws of input and output exacerbated the consequences of cumulative errors (see GIGO). The remedies and follow-up were unhelpful and wrongfully stigmatizing.
  • Therefore, the entire case should be annulled in order to demonstrate unequivocally that ArbCom is something other than a trap or a trick for the unwary.
  • Annulment is quashes the wrongful use of the ArbCom as weapon for labeling me a wiki-felon, stigmatized forever for bad behaviour.
Tenmei's reply to Bueller 007

Yes, I too thought I understood the arbitration decision until JohnVandenberg's edit at Talk:Order of Culture suggested I did not. Finding something about which we can agree is a constructive first step in responding to your statement below. That said, I learned something useful at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 4 when Nihonjoe wrote: "Please don't attribute something to me which is not correct." You have not been specific, but I adopt his "measured" language as a mild and non-confrontational expression of disagreement with other elements of your statement. --Tenmei (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tenmei's reply to Nick-D

Yes, you are correct in remembering that I initiated the RFArb. Finding something about which we can agree is a constructive first step in responding to your statement below. That said, I learned something useful at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 4 when Nihonjoe wrote: "Please don't attribute something to me which is not correct." You have not been specific, but I adopt his "measured" language as a mild and non-confrontational expression of disagreement with other elements of your statement. --Tenmei (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tenmei's reply to Teeninvestor

Yes, I too join you in hoping this case will be resolved satisfactorily. Finding something about which we can agree is a constructive first step in responding to your statement below. You have not been specific, but I adopt his "measured" language as a mild and non-confrontational expression of disagreement with other elements of your statement. --Tenmei (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tenmei's reply to Caspian blue

Yes, you correctly identify something I'd forgotten, a single edit of Gyeongju in July. It was just one otherwise unremarkable reverts in a series which is recorded as part of my User contributions list:

Finding something about which we can agree is a constructive first step in responding to your statement below. That said, I learned something useful at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 4 when Nihonjoe wrote: "Please don't attribute something to me which is not correct." Where you have not been specific, I adopt his "measured" language as a mild and non-confrontational expression of disagreement with other elements of your statement.

I also learned something at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Vote/AGK when User:Manning Bartlett parsed an issue which is no less relevant in this setting. I adopt his measured words as my own: "There is a degree of (possibly unintentional) misrepresentation in Caspian's comment ....". For example, no source exists to support what is perhaps the most dramatic claim: "According to him, I'm a foolish barking dog" (italics in original below). I did not write nor say nor think anything like that. Moreover, the explicit context created by the Restatement section and by Obama's conciliatory remarks (as linked and reproduced above) is simply inconsistent with this and other strained accusations. Beyond blunt denial, I don't know to rebuff extravagant "frequent smearing naming-calling like "crying wolf" and his frequent mention about Korean ethnicity." Overreaching is often recognized as unpersuasive, even dissuasive. --Tenmei (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Wikistalking is overreaching; but in this context, serious consequences ensue. There is nothing inherently vicious in the catchphrase teachable moment, nor was there offense in a question presented to AGK in 2009, nor anything I need explain in at User talk:AGK in 2008 here.
This was perverse before; and now it wanders into territory which is even more difficult to parse. At a minimum, I repeat:
A. "There is a degree of (possibly unintentional) misrepresentation" in Caspian's blue's strategy; and I'm not alone in identifying this elephant in the room.
B. "Please don't attribute something to me which is not correct," e.g.,
Do the following illustrate "frequent smearing naming-calling like "crying wolf"? "bashing"? "mocking"? "frequent mention about Korean ethnicity"?
  • diff, 1-below "Unlike Capsian blue, whose feigned offense developed into a pattern, my edit history supports no inference that I admit to being aggrieved without cause or thought."
  • diff, 2-below ".. section has a citation with a link to an encyclopedia article written in Korean -- yes; but there is no evidence that anyone, not User: Caspian blue nor anyone else has actually read it, nor that any part of that Korean text is accurately reflected in the English prose posted in our article."
  • diff, 3-below. "In the period before User:Caspian blue busied himself with escalating complaint, I had already posted pre-Hepburn transliterations of the names of some of the ambassadors as contrived by Julius Klaproth and Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat in 1834."
  • diff, 4-below. "At some point, User:Caspian blue added a link to one of them referencing an online encylopedia in Korean; but no more effort was invested in improving this article."
  • diff, 5-below. "Caspian blue's contrived drama and exaggerated, aggrieved rhetoric served the ultimate goal of merging a third article with carefully developed sources into those without sources. At the same time, as evidenced by the thread above, Caspian blue resisted all efforts to find a name which would comply with English naming standards."
  • [ diff] ...?
  • [ diff] ...?
  • [ diff] "name-calling like crying wolf" ...? When?
  • [ diff] ...?
  • [ diff] name-calling about "Korean ethnicity ...? When?
Caspian blue selects ed these five instances of perceived misconduct. plus my participation in the thread at Talk:Order of Culture. I posted these examples so that I can figure out how to grapple with these complaints as a group. There is a common theme -- in each diff, the focus has to do with improving the article (permitted) and not a personal attack (not permitted). In each, I acknowledge that User:Caspian blue's actions affect a context of figuring out what to do first and what to do next. In this context, I find myself wondering how exactly does this fit in with the claim that Taemyr "criticized Tenmei's behaviors (his abusive tagging of templates, disregards to Korean naming convention, attacks about Caspian blue) in the last six months?
In the context of this house of cards, my focus is forward-looking. I hazard a guess that these are reasonable and timely comments and questions. If not, why not? --Tenmei (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the section above, I've stricken arguably meaningful responses in order emphasize one fulcrum sentence in Caspian blue's statement:
By editing articles that naturally tend to invite "conflicts" between two different nationals, Tenmei is repeating his old bad habit by just moving onto other editors in dispute such as Historiographer.
Each of the axiomatic presumptions are wrong -- unproven, unprovable except by the circular logic of post hoc ergo propter hoc which held ArbCom in thrall in June.
The initial thrust of this request for amendment is too easily diverted, distracted, deflected. In seeking to assist ArbCom's assessment of Caspian blue's words, I can do no better than to emphasize two elements in the "Restatement" section posted at the beginning of this thread:
3. Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
4. Are unsourced assertions being used?
The sources to which Caspian blue alludes do not actually support the assertions for which they remain uncited.
The unsourced assertions in the ArbCom case were wrongly credited; and it produced a bad result, but the error seemed harmless when I mistook the wiki-terms "mentor" and "mentorship" to be congruent with the Wikipedia articles which explain what mentor and mentorship are generally understood to mean. Moreover, involuntary mentorship does not have a successful track record.
The dire consequences of censure and the irrevocable stigma of a censor is at stake.
Censure ≠ Mentorship = Coaching
 Censor  ≠ Mentor
This has nothing to do with benign coaching and it belies the adduced principle that "the community has a forward-looking approach to interpersonal disputes."
User:FloNight blanked the talk pages at Caspian blue's request. In the same way, this case needs to be annulled because the imprimatur of ArbCom is perverted to concoct a harmful alchemy. It sends a counter-productive message. --Tenmei (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Six month review

The three sentences of the "Six Month Review" are not plausible, not accurate, not credible in do not acknowledge the context of e-mails sent by me to ArbCom beginning in June.

Not 'Wrong+'
The Review summary trivializes and dismisses my attempts to figure out what the ArbCom decision meant, conflating evidence of each attempt to be scrupulous with something like inattention. Blame is a difficult word; but in this six month period, my words or actions were careful measured and blameless -- consistently and explicitly at odds with the familiar structure of victimization which Caspian blue erects in his statement on this page or elsewhere.

n my view We acknowledge that it is not necessary for ArbCom to be correct nor even fair. I'm prepared to accept that the volunteer members of the Arbitration Committee do whatever seems practical, which means that I don't even anticipate that any specific decision or series of decisions will be the best of all options. However, the thrust of the Review summary and the increased penalties, narrower restrictions and ratcheted-up punishment imply a perception that I have been unwilling, uncooperative, thoughtless, recalcitrant, heedless or any other of a number of adjectives. I was not unwilling. I was not uninquisitive. This "value-added" opprobrium is unearned, undeserved, unmerited and resistant to parsing.

It's one thing to be simply wrong; and This Review summary contrives something like "wrong+" -- wrong plus something more as well.

As early as June I tried to discover what ArbCom wanted me to do or not do. In the following months My serial e-messages asking ArbCom to explain are not consistent with unwillingness nor uncooperative intention. For example I wrote to FloNight in June with copies to the ArbCom list; and I construed Kirill Lokshin response as encouraging me to wait patiently for further feedback. Carcharoth's response to another request for explanation was explicit in urging patience. Now I am punished for what could have been avoided if only I had asked different questions or understood more about what was expected There is a difference -- a crucial distinction -- between my being merely wrong and "extra-wrong" in terms of the unstated justifications for increased punative burdens, restrictions or penalties which are now imposed. A crucial blurring in the Review summary is married with onerous consequences. This is a bad marriage.

First part of Arbitrators' summary below.

The words of the first paragraph cause a problem in the way they set up 2 + 2 = 4.
  • "Since the close of the Tang Dynasty case, Tenmei has continued to edit without a mentor, frequently editing in topical areas where conflicts have occurred in the past, and on occasion has violated the editing restrictions."
These words -- especially the phrase "violated editing restrictions" -- are misleading because they fail to acknowledge the many times I sought explicitly to find out what were or what were not ArbCom's expectations. In the face of inquiries, which I reasonably construed as invitations for ArbCom to give my work closer scrutiny, I guessed that each of my edits were balanced and unremarkable. How else should I have construed ArbCom's non-responsive silence?
The issues in this thread should have been avoidable. The words of this Review summary seem to apportion responsibility or blame wrongly; and to the extent the sentences are indirectly arguing that I deserve punishment, they're wrong. The approach is wrong. The results are wrong. My passive silence would be wrong, in this context as explained at Wikipedia:Silence and consensus -- Qui tacet consentire videtur. In the alternative, why was how could I have known I was wrong to interpret ArbCom's silence as confirmation that my edits were within the realm of the appropriate?

¶1(a). Copy of e-message, Tenmei to ArbCom-List (17 Sept)

Subject: What, if anything, am I supposed to do or not do?
Copy of e-message, Tenmei to ArbCom-List (17 Sept):
A problem is developing.

I note the following thread which has unfolded on Caspian blue's talk page; and you should note it as well. The familiar pattern deserves noting -- not just in this specific instance, but more broadly as it affects others. In that broader context, this new development is not unanticipated.

What are you going to do? What should you have done in anticipation of this?

What should I do? What should I have done in anticipation of this?

Each of the following articles are meticulously supported by citations from credible sources. The following thread is a reflexive, knee-jerk reaction which contrives a problem where none need exist. These articles are related to the thread below:

See: User talk:Caspian blue#Joseon -- copied below
Hi, you might be busy, but I am also very busy these days. However, this is serious, so I really need help. As User:Tenmei edits Korea-Japan history articles, Joseon Tongsinsa, Taejo of Joseon and Korean diplomats, he ignores Korean naming conventions and names, and removed contents. He also inserted unrelated or trivia and very old outdated sources to articles. So please join the discussion of Joseon Tongsinsa and Taejo of Joseon. Thank you.--Historiographer (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm..so what do you want me to do? --Caspian blue 22:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Caspian Blue, I read the past discussion on Joseon Tongsinsa, and you participated in past discussion with Tenmei. But why are you so quiet even I asked you last time? Many Korean articles are incorrectly named and important materials before Japanese invasions of Korea were arbitrarily deleted. Only people of North Korea are named in RR. But Tenmei ignores Korean name convention. I'm very busy, but the articles are corrected. I don't know why everyone is quiet. Please join the discussion.Historiographer (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the reason is very simple - Although I'm well aware of all the problems you've brought here, I do not want any more nightmare and wasting of my time and energy. I just want peace. I do also care about my heath.(my gastric ulcer was caused by some heavy stresses from some vicious long-term harassment and personal attacks) I will answer more later though.--Caspian blue 15:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After checking on the talk pages, and contributions and unsubstantiated accusations on the talk page, it is too obvious that some intervention by others is strongly required. The split articles are in mess and the person in question unilaterally excises and makes articles for his POV and inserts some unreliable and POV source (where non-scholar or any users can edit) as if he read the original sources through. Unfortunately, there are only handful of active editors, most of which are more interested in South Korean pop culture. I think this is a wake-up call.
To sum up, Tenmei has been under WP:ArbCom probation after his disruption and long-term harassment against users including me were pointed out, so one of his ArbCom probation is to have assigned mentor(s) as well as his 6 month topic ban to some Chinese-Mongolian article.[12] Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joseon_tongsinsa, you already read this AFD, and this is a beginning of the long nightmare. I've tried to avoid editing articles that he edits although those "Korea"-related articles are my common editing articles such as history, Buddhism, culture, Korean terms etc. The Korean source that I inserted was completely deleted by him and he attacked me with very vicious languages on the talk page even though I have been absent of editing or participating in the discussion of Joseon Tongsinsa. He broke his ban in regard to commenting about me, so a block would have been warranted if I had requested for enforcement against his violation. If you have problems with Tenmei, the assigned mentor (I don't know who s/he is because it is not announced yet. That is very odd) is supposed to be assisting you (or anyone conflicting with Tenmei) and Tenmei. I think this matter should get more attention from ArbCom since they are lazy at handling Tenmei's same occurring behaviors. I'd like to say that you have to ignore him, but well... the articles are in total mess. Thank you for bringing up to my attention.--Caspian blue 19:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant that this burgeoning problem now arises in a context in which there has been no reasonable discussion about the broad subject in which the following are all linked. Nor have there been any questions about the sources which inform the text of these articles.
This is a general inquiry; but I have a specific question as well. I noticed one of Caspian blue's sentences: "He broke his ban in regard to commenting about me, so a block would have been warranted if I had requested for enforcement against his violation." What, if anything, am I supposed to do or not do in the context of this sentence?(emphasis/underlining added) --Tenmei
He broke his ban in regard to commenting about me, so a block would have been warranted if I had requested for enforcement against his violation. (Note this repetition of the sentence which causes me to ask a timely question).


Second part of Arbitrators' summary below.

These words of the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are a problem in the way they set up 2 + 2 = 4.
  • "The Arbitration Committee's attempts to arrange mentors has proved difficult in this case, especially with Tenmei rejecting a suitable mentor found by the Arbitration Committee recently .... The committee is not able to fulfill the role of a mentor, and regretfully moves to shift the responsibility of obtaining a mentor onto Tenmei."
The phrases of the Review summary apportion responsibility or blame wrongly. and to the extent the words are indirectly arguing that I deserve punishment, those words are wrong. The approach is wrong. The results are wrong. No less important, my passive silence would be wrong. In other words, I ought to have spoken when I was able to do so -- and I did do what could be done. (Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit or "Thus, silence gives consent; he ought to have spoken when he was able to.")

¶2-3(a). Copy of e-message, John Vandenberg to Tenmei (17 Nov).

The only specific question asked was: "Is this suitable?"
Subject: Is this suitable?
Copy of e-message, John Vandenberg to Tenmei (17 Nov):
Hi Tenmei,

As you know, the arbcom decision was that you were to have a mentor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tang_Dynasty#Tenmei_mentored

I have spoken with [name redacted], and he has agree to be your mentor, if you agree.

Is this suitable?

I would appreciate it if you could respond quickly to this request. --John Vandenberg

¶2-3(b). Copy of e-message, Tenmei to John Vandenberg (17 Nov).

The only specific question asked was: "Is this suitable?" My response addressed issues of "suitability." I had not understood that the question was merely rhetorical.of the offer. and in subsequently, the ramped-up punishment does not sit lightly. My sentences and paragraphs were crafted by someone trying to understand, by someone trying to invite some alternate way to parse sentences in a meaningful manner
Subject: Converting proposed "mentor" into an untrustworthy opponent, which becomes unworkable
Copy of e-message, Tenmei to John Vandenberg (17 Nov):
John--
If this offer of a mentor/colleague had been proposed at any point prior to November 2009, my response would have been yes.

Today, my response is quite different. No.

I sought help, but neither you nor anyone else in the ArbCom process answered any questions with a perverse outcome as the inevitable consequence. Nor did you respond to the serial inquiries I've addressed to ArbCom in the period since Tang Dynasty closed.

As far as I can tell, your only objective today is punative and thus harmful. No.

I do not deserve this; and worse, it sends the wrong message. The circumstances you contrive convert [amy proposed "mentor"] into an untrustworthy opponent, which becomes unworkable a priori.(emphasis/underlining added)

Think again.

Start here -- explain this: Am I to construe that Caspian blue's contributions to this thread are not inflammatory

  • Oppose for the reason expressed succinctly by Dekimasu: Preemptive disambiguation is deprecated. In addition, the following points are relevant:
A. This non-issue is most easily resolved by relying on the explicit expression of the Korean government website which elaborates on the national system of orders, decorations and medals. See, e.g., 문화훈장(文化勳章, Order of Culture Merit.
B. This non-issue was contrived by Caspian blue without foundation or merit. Indeed, even the link proffered in ostensible support fails in this too-facile gambit. See, e.g., an Sang-hee. "Bae Receives National Order of Culture Merit," Korea Times. October 19, 2008.
C. With regret, I feel compelled to note that the community has ill-served Caspian blue in the past by validating this confrontational tactic; but perhaps instead, this thread can evolve into a teachable moment with unanticipated consequences? --Tenmei (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tenmei, I'm sorry, haven't you been under the WP:ARBCOM probation because of "your ill-served behaviors" recognized by ArbCom? Judging by your "current" violation of your [[WP:ARBCOM] probation again in regard to commenting about me here, I guess you don't get your teachable moment yet regardless of your active sanction. Your WP:Bad faith, and personal attacks are out of line. Comments about edit or the request are fine just like the others, but if you do not stop making personal attacks against me and strike the comments, I would make formally make WP:AE report on your violation as well as the others for the past months in which you've violated a lot. This is my last generosity on your violations. When you made made incorrect edits to articles, I did not play such low blow.--Caspian blue 22:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
This pattern is familiar, characteristic. My reasoning is supported by research, by reference to reliable sources and by moderate language.(emphasis/underlining added) In contrast, Caspian blue's immoderate language ratchets up and re-frames perceived conflict -- with no investment of time or thought beyond the outburst of pumped-up indignation.

John, your e-message effectively validates Caspian blue's confrontational tactics. Worse, it effectively devalues anything and everything else. In contrast, you have my explicit words characterizing the foundation from which my editing practices build.

Restatement
My contributions to this not-very-complicated thread have been informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point in a predictably escalating drama:
  • 1. What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
  • 2. What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does each cited source reflect that consensus?
  • 3. Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
  • 4. Are unsourced assertions being used?
Can't we agree that this provides a commonly accepted foundation for our work together. --Tenmei (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
In this context, Caspian blue's admission is telling: "Of course, I did not know the existence of Order of Cultural Merit (Korea) ...." This sentence demonstrates that thread was not initiated to solve a problem, but to contrive one. My candor was set within an informed context. (emphasis/underlining added)
The edit history of Order of Cultural Merit (Korea) includes no contributions from Caspian blue. The following citations support a select list of Korean recipients; and each of these reliable Korean sources support the moderate views expressed by Dekimasu and Phoenix7777:
In case you've forgotten, the restatement are Coren's words. Your e-mail rejects their logic and mine.

At root, ArbCom's handling of Tang Dynasty rejects Coren's words and now the outcome, as I predicted, contrives new problems-which-don't-need-to-be-problems.

You will have to do better than this.

No. --Tenmei

¶2-3(c). Copy of e-message, John Vandenberg to Tenmei (18 Nov).

The unstated Axiomatic presumptions which underlie this response are not mirrored in what came before. the serial communication which preceded this current situation; and to the extent that this failure of communication can be parsed, it is reasonable to wonder why? For example, this is the first time that ArbCom has explicitly states that I was wrong to ask questions about what the ArbCom decision meant for me to do or not to do? If it were to have been so obvious, then why didn't one of the earlier responses state exactly that? My best guess is that this is an unwelcome post hoc rationalization. In different words, what good and valid reason justifies waiting until now -- months later? What about those unacknowledged ArbCom responses to my inquiries which encouraged me to wait patiently are not acknowledged. as I have done?
Another example: This message from John Vandenberg represents the first time I encounter any hint of expectation that I should have been actively looking for a mentor. How was I supposed to have made guesses about this in the absence of any words?
Subject: Not responded to your emails because it is not our job to be your mentor
Copy of e-message, John Vandenberg to Tenmei (18 Nov).
Thank you for responding quickly Tenmei.
The first point I wish to make is that the arbcom decision does not restrict Caspian blue.
I am sorry if you think this is not fair.
You are restricted, and you are violating that restriction.
If Caspian blue does something which you do not like, you should talk to your mentor and, if they agree, pursue dispute resolution. You are not permitted to interact with Caspian blue and Teeninvestor.
The committee does not have time to get involved in your disputes, and does not want to see your private correspondence with your mentor. The committee has not responded to your emails because it is not our job to be your mentor.(emphasis/underlining added)
It is our responsibility to ensure that you have a mentor. If the committee needs to become involved, they will probably enact remedies which are even less fair, because you have not found a mentor.(emphasis/underlining added)

You can not ask for relief while you are violating the ArbCom decision.

If Caspian blue regularly does things which you do not like, we can amend the case so that Caspian blue is also restricted, but we will not do that until you have a mentor and your mentor tells us that Caspian blue is causing problems.
[Name redacted] was not willing to be a mentor, but [name redacted] is willing. --John Vandenberg


Too long/didn't read
Nothing in this case was a simple matter. This short analysis could not be more concise. I regret the point-of-view of those inclined to reject, dismiss or ignore whatever I write. This is explained, they say, by the rubric of WP:TLDR. I can only hope that this negative reading is not unilikely to be balanced by others who do read and do try to understand what I have try to explain. In this comment What can be said to those who reject a priori?

Words do matter. Actions do matter. In this case, non-responsive silence and prolonged inaction matter, too.

Consequences are never unimportant.

No harmful consequence flow from identifying the axiomatic presumptions which underly the summary which has now been endorsed by a number of ArbCom members. Rather, I am shouldering reasonable responsibilities in this situation by trying to clarify the context. My explicit and repeated efforts to contribute constructively are demonstrable and not insignificant. I have done what I could to avoid the problems I confront today; and I need to state exactly that.

It is simply wrong to impose added adverse burdens on me as a consequence of failures which were not within my ability to affect. --Tenmei (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: re Vandenberg's draft summary
No. I suppose that this post hoc fiction will seem plausible. to the casual reviewer, but I deserve something better as a summary from which others will draw inferences. The consequences you propose in relation to this summary require that your prose be more carefully considered. Your sentences must be able to stand up to closer scrutiny. In general, your approach enhances perverse incentives. --Tenmei (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2009 --Tenmei (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As with Coren below, your re-definition of the wiki-term "mentor" is both novel and undefined. This is only discoverable at "Mentor Availability" when you explain, "Issues need to be taken directly to the mentors" and at "Editors who come into conflict" when you explain that "it goes without saying that "editors who come into conflict with Tenmei are advised to contact the mentor(s) either publicly or via email."

Your unique usage is not mirrored in the texts of Mentor or Mentorship or WP:Mentorship.

I don't dispute your personal decision to re-define a term, nor do I dispute ArbCom's collective re-defining of terms. However, when you and/or ArbCom does something like this, it cannot be presented as axiomatic. To the extent that your clarifying language is accepted and adopted by your ArbCom colleagues, this becomes something other than what you see is what you get. The Knife-edge effect of this re-definition needs further investigation. This re-definition was not made explicit, thus constriving a bait and switch scenario. My objections now are timely. --Tenmei (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: re Carcharoth's endoresement of Review summary
No, this is not a fair summary. As you know, this narrative is inconsistent with your own personal experience. Your casual assent in this context serves Wikipedia poorly because it effectively endorses perverse incentives. --Tenmei (talk) 09:30, 30 November 2009 --Tenmei (talk) 03:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: re Coren's endorsement of Review summary
Your re-definition of the wiki-term "mentor" is both novel and undefined. This is only discoverable at "Mentor Availability" when you explain, "That is, in fact, one of the primary objectives of having a mentor." (emphasis/underlining added) Prior to this, how could I have known that, as ArbCom uniquely defines this term, a wiki-mentor "must be publicly identified, and willing to make themselves available for other editors to contact them publicly or privately.

Your unique usage is not mirrored in the texts of Mentor or Mentorship or WP:Mentorship.

I don't dispute your personal decision to re-define a term, nor do I dispute ArbCom's collective re-defining of terms. However, when you and/or ArbCom does something like this, it cannot be presented as axiomatic. To the extent that your clarifying language is accepted and adopted by your ArbCom colleagues, this becomes something other than what you see is what you get. Using your own idiomatic words, this is not an instance in which the undefined wiki-term does exactly what it says on the tin. The Knife-edge effect of this re-definition needs further investigation. This re-definition was not made explicit, thus creating a bait and switch scenario. My unanswered questions now are timely. --Tenmei (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re Riskers endorsement of Six month review & Enforcement of mentorship
What is a caveat other than the result of Lessons learned the hard way? Risker's contributes untimely threats; and the message for the already willing becomes strained, frail, thin. A friend gave me a yellowed newspaper clipping -- a copy of an old chess column published in the New York Times. The published heading and initial sentences are persuasive, prudent and forward-looking:
Beware the shortsighted quick fix that can lead to worse problems.
"The close-at-hand problem is always the one the defender must take care of before anything else, but the solution should include what you are committing yourself to over the long haul.

"It is altogether too easy to let the burden of the immediate problem obliterate other considerations from your thinking and to jump at what promises to be a quick fix. What often happens is that you have not achieved a long-range success but only converted one difficulty into another perhaps less obvious but no less onerous one."

-- Robert Byrne. "Chess," New York Times. December 24, 1989.
In our context, there is something lacking in judgment which misconstrues learned caution as something other than what it is. In the decision-making here, Risker simply contributed an added assent to other votes which were already posted; but the cognitive dissonance and other reasoning which underly Risker's judgment have consequences. "When the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail." --Tenmei (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bueller 007

Still WP:TLDR mixed in with a hefty dose of obfuscation. Doesn't seem to have taken much out of previous arbitration in this regard, which I guess makes sense since he says he couldn't understand it. I don't know anything about the case above and beyond what's written on the RfA page, but the results of arbitration made perfect sense to me, and they seemed more than fair. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nick-D

This seems to be nothing more than an attempt to reject the entire arbitration outcome on the grounds that Tenmei was unable to dictate how it was conducted and didn't like the outcome (from memory, he initiated the RFArb). Nick-D (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Teeninvestor

Tenmei's latest endeveaur is nothing but an example of the need for the case's provisions. Tenmei continues to display the disruptive characteristics that he had in the last dispute(WP:TLDR, unwillingness to work with others, inability to understand policy, etc..). In fact, he is currently engaged in a dispute with User:Historiographer. I support ArbCom's latest provisions, including a prohibition on Tenmei editing without a mentor. I am currently not able to participate fully in the case due to school, SAT and other purposes, but I hope this case will be resolved satisfactorily. I believe that this latest disruption by Tenmei has affirmed my earlier view for the need for a mentor immediately as well as punitive blocks. As Tenmei has rejected the first, it may be necessary to use the second to prevent any more disruption. Teeninvestor (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Caspian blue

As far as I've known, Tenmei is the only person who has freely edited Wikipedia so far without any punishment regardless of his constant refusal to accept the final remedies imposed to him and to abide by WP:NPA and WP:HARASSMENT. His case is quit strikingly in contrast with the cases of Mythdon (talk · contribs) (and Scuro (talk · contribs), whose cases were submitted and wrapped in similar times. They all refused to accept mentorship and went on with the same problematic behaviors, so their remedies are intensified. This contrast does not mean that Tenmei has been editing Wikipedia without breaking his sanction, but my skin gets much thicker after Tenmei's long-term harassment of me, and I have not reported Tenmei for his numerous violations to WP:AE in order to block him. I think I really tried to give him another second chance (foolishly) and cooperate with him since his name has been popping up a lot to "newly created Korean-related article board". After the ArbCom case was close, his interests are weirdly moved to Korean related topics, not necessarily about Korea-Japan topics. FloNight recommended me and Teeninvestor to let "others edit the conflicted articles", but such others are almost "none" even though the topics are very notable. I'd been avoiding Tenmei for 3 months after the case was closed although I knew he several times bashed about me[13][14][15][16][17] when Taemyr (talk · contribs), informal mentor of Tenmei, criticized Tenmei's behaviors (his abusive tagging of templates, disregards to Korean naming convention, attacks about me). The frequency of Tenmei's editing Korean-related topics are rather hugely increased after the case. His interests were switched from Mongolian-Chinese relations to ancient Korean-Chinese or Korean-Japanese relations. At that times, I was busy for WP:FAR on Gyeongju (Tenmei appeared to edit the article unsurprisingly) and WP:GA on Korean cuisine, so his provocation could be ignored. However, not for other editors.

By editing articles that naturally tend to invite "conflicts" between two different nationals, Tenmei is repeating his old bad habit by just moving onto other editors in dispute such as Historiographer (talk · contribs). The latter asked me twice to participate in discussion because he felt handling Tenmei's POV pushing and inserting of original research are beyond his capacity. The ArbCom case only covers the article of Tang Dynasty in Inner Asia, so his mentorship and his probation; prohibiting commenting about me anywhere within Wikipedia - could be only things on which I can depend without fear of Tenmei's persistent harassment. However, well...regardless of my reminder that he should not comment about me and focus on topic in discuss, he still does not get it. According to him, I'm a "foolish barking dog" because I pointed out his breach of WP:ARBCOM ban and WP:Personal attacks and WP:Bad faith. That is another unforgettable slur after his favorite naming calling of me "crying wolf" and "toxic warrior" got old fashion. Calling someone dog is perceived to Koreans as a great slur and even often as a racial slur", and I have lost my good faith that he would not know of this given his frequent smearing naming-calling like "crying wolf" and his frequent mention about Korean ethnicity. He so kindly linked the idiom article that he created; that is just typical because he's created perhaps 4 or 5 articles on English idioms just to mock his opponents and quoted them and urged me to "read and learn about them". I've been working with various editors, and he is also the only one who has not been punished at all for his such vicious behaviors (all are either banned, blocked multiply, or topic-banned indefinitely) However, reporting him to WP:ANI is a great time sink and a loss of my health without any action to him because of his WP:TL;DR and inability of communication, so I rather tried to make him acknowledge that he needs mentors to cooperate articles.

However, if I want to fix articles in wrong Romanization per WP:NC-KO, a grand saga would always wait for me. I've explained many times to make Tenmei to understand the naming convention, but he would not listen. Tenmei canvassed about a to-do-list on his opponent's user page to over 10 talk pages. I removed one such offensive message from the talk page, I become engaged in a tag-team according to his attacks. So what should be done with the amendment? Get him a mentor or do the same remedies enforced to Mythdon and Scuro. For the past 6 months, he has refused to move on but repeated the same old habit. I do not want to waste another 6 months over this. In addition, Tenmei still wrongly accuses her Teeninvestor of using "hollow sources"; Teeninvestor has obtained a GA with the book reference.--Caspian blue 19:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Tenmei's wikistalking I considered bring Tenmei's another spooky obsessive behavior. Tenmei just confessed he is still wikistalking me above. That's why he only asked about his weird and cryptic questions to AGK (talk · contribs) among the bunch of candidates because he tracked down my contribution and saw me message to AGK. This "teachable moment" thing that you threw to AGK is the same one when you attacked me with the said vicious attacks.[18]. This is all the same typical Tenmei's habit; canvassing to people who had previous interaction with me in order to make a negative impression on me. Your inability of communication is well shown in AGK's response.[19] Tenmei, think about why your "barking dog" attacks were deleted and the edit summary that tells you that you're breaking your ArbCom ban.[20] You should feel lucky that I gave you another chance to seek your mentor for over a week instead of making you directly blocked by WP:AE. Dekimatsu told you that "don't touch my comment",[21] and you still do the same inappropriate behaviors as well. You also broke your ban to his talk page.[22]. This example, Talk:Yeo Ui-son would show a big difference between you and me when it comes to handle content disputes; while you resort to personal attacks are well shown with this diff.[23][24][25][26][27]-Caspian blue 02:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Penwhale

Any time that foreign-language text/sources are involved, it should not hurt to have someone fluent in the language to overlook things. (Granted, I have my own views regarding PRC and ROC and their political status, but that's another issue - ask me about it at some point and I probably can assure that you'd get more confused at the end.) If I didn't say it before, I say now that I'm willing to assist regarding foreign language text/sources when I'm provided the references to look at. I've personally translated a few things in the original case; however, I did not manage to gain access to any of the actual text (of the book) itself (which I've stated in the original case, too.) I'm willing to assist - not as a mentor (I've been too inactive to do that) - when translation is required I believe I can be of some help.

But in this case I don't want to take a nosedive without knowing what I'm getting myself into. After all, this is the area where I may be perceived as having a bias - treading carefully is best. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 02:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added 04:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC): Make it so that mentors who resign must inform ArbCom and have major mentor activities (resigning, assignment, mentor on wiki-break and needs someone else to step in, etc.) logged on the case page would clear up the status, no? Wouldn't that be a better idea than have the mentor just be publicly identifiable? - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 04:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment 2

  • Link to principle, finding of fact, or remedy to which this amendment is requested
  • Details of desired modification

Statement by your username (2)

{Statement by editor filing request for amendment. Contained herein should be an explanation and evidence detailing why the amendment is necessary.}

Statement by other editor (2)

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Statement by yet another editor

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Make formal recusal due to my original position as commentator in the original case. (Despite the fact that I've not been active much lately...) - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 08:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Tenmei, the annulment that I proposed for The Troubles case is because a year has elapsed since the case has closed, and I think it is possible to conclude that case so that the community can try to manage the problem. I expect that the community would bring a new case to us. The Tang Dynasty case has not yet been implemented properly - you still do not have a mentor, yet you keep editing, and you have not stepped away from the conflicts which you were involved in prior to the case. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tang Dynasty motions

Six month review

Since the close of the Tang Dynasty case, Tenmei has continued to edit without a mentor, frequently editing in topical areas where conflicts have occurred in the past, and on occasion has violated the editing restrictions.

The Arbitration Committee's attempts to arrange mentors has proved difficult in this case, especially with Tenmei rejecting a suitable mentor found by the Arbitration Committee recently.

In lieu of a mentor, Tenmei has sought advice from the Arbitration Committee about the decision, editorial disputes and project guidelines and policies. The committee is not able to fulfill the role of a mentor, and regretfully moves to shift the responsibility of obtaining a mentor onto Tenmei.

Support
  1. This is a fair summary. Carcharoth (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 19:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Coren (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Roger Davies talk 18:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Vassyana (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse
Discussion
  • I think this accurately sums up the last six months. I'll not support it until Tenmei and other committee members have had time to comment. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tenmei mentor

Tenmei (talk · contribs) is required to have one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.

While Tenmei is without a mentor, Tenmei is prohibited from contributing except for the purpose of communicating with potential mentors. During this period, Tenmei is instructed to avoid talking about other editors.

Support
  1. This amends 2.1, replacing "shall be assigned one or more volunteer mentors" with "is required to have one or more volunteer mentors". John Vandenberg (chat) 02:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 19:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Coren (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 18:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Vassyana (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse
Discussion

Mentor availability

The mentor must be publicly identified, and willing to make themselves available for other editors to contact them publicly or privately.

Support
  1. Issues need to be taken directly to the mentors. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Carcharoth (talk) 01:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 19:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. That is, in fact, one of the primary objectives of having a mentor. — Coren (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 18:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Vassyana (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse
Discussion

Editors who come into conflict

Editors who come into conflict with Tenmei are advised to contact the mentor(s) either publicly or via email.

Support
  1. Weakly; this goes without saying. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Problems with notification of said editors, but at the least those following this request and those who have had disputes with Tenmei previously should take heed of this. Carcharoth (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 19:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Coren (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 18:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Vassyana (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse
Discussion

Tenmei restriction reset

The restrictions in remedy 1.1 are reset, to commence once the mentor arrangement is approved by the Arbitration Committee.

Support
  1. Necessary in order for the mentoring to have a chance. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Carcharoth (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 19:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Coren (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  Roger Davies talk 18:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Vassyana (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse
Discussion

Enforcement of mentorship

Should Tenmei violate the requirement to have a mentor before contributing, or should Tenmei cause unrest while contacting potential mentors, the user may be briefly blocked for up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty#Log of blocks and bans.

Support
  1. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Carcharoth (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As Wizardman says, this may be suboptimal; but it's necessary. — Coren (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weakly support; still unsure but it's something. Wizardman 19:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weakly support. Tenmei should interpret this as strong motivation to focus on obtaining a mentor, rather than a new opportunity to debate, else other stronger remedies may be put in place. Risker (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'll support this for now, but I doubt that in practice we would tolerate multiple violations before escalating to a more severe sanction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
This I don't know. I'd rather give him a time limit and if he can't do it, it's a full ban. Wizardman 19:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Per Wizardman.  Roger Davies talk 18:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Time limits. Vassyana (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse
Discussion
  • This motion is intended to also cater for the possibility that a mentor, if one is found now, could conclude the mentoring arrangement, in which case it is necessary for Tenmei to seek another mentor. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Ten arbitrators active on these Tang Dynasty case amendment motions, hence a majority of 6. All the motions are currently passing, though the enforcement motion only passes due to abstentions. Three arbitrators left to vote here. Will notify a clerk to prepare a fuller version of these notes, in preparation for closing this, either after the remaining arbitrators vote, or within 24-48 hours. Carcharoth (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Tang_Dynasty&oldid=330787849"