Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

These are not all my words, but I propose them as if they were my own. --Tenmei (talk) 17:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Real world factions

1) ArbCom acknowledges real-world factions that vie for control over articles, turning them into polemical battlegrounds where surface civility is used to cover bias, tendentiousness and even harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

We are well aware that this is another example of an ethnic-national dispute of a type that gives rise to a great number of disputes on Misplaced Pages, including a significant portion of arbitration cases. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

As Brad said... this is nothing new to us. SirFozzie (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

@Newyorkbrad -- is it possible for you to perceive the overview you posit is part of the problem, not part of the solution? The phrase "another example of an ethnic-national dispute" contrives arguably reasonable pigeonholes and a false dilemma at the same time. For example, the perception of "both sides pretty much entrenched and non-collaborative" is unhelpful, not because it is obviously false, but because it is a self-fulfilling prophesy. Your sentence has a similar self-fulfilling character which tends to obscure rather than clarify. For example, the analysis fails to acknowledge -- and marginalizes -- the cumulative edits of Qwyxian, including his ability and willingness to change across a span of months, as explained here.

In this ArbCom context, your task is to parse the available data to distinguish between a dispute which is primarily about water and rocks and something else which has water and rocks as significant elements. Do you see the difference? Are your words opening a door or shutting out something unforseen? --Tenmei (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

@ SirFozzie -- What is crucially different about this specific case are the "pro-Misplaced Pages" contributions, the "framing", the "spin" and the analysis which Qwyrixian and others added (or tried to add). For example, I adopt the words of Phoenix7777 here as if they were my own, e.g.,

"trying to make the Japanese POV claim to NPOV is nonsense. What we should do is to represent the sources accurately not to represent the editor's 'POV'/'NPOV' interpretation ...."

Since February, I have returned to this pivotal edit again and again trying to understand how to move us to the next step. Tangentially, I was persuaded by the reasoning of Kanguole here at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC; and I adopt the words as if they were my own: "We should not be campaigning to change common usage, or be more 'correct' than our sources". Phoenix7777 and Kanguole and I are on the same page. This stands on a separate footing than the predictable dichotomies of an "ethnic-national dispute". --Tenmei (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Rules and policies as weapons

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

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Vested toxic warriors

3) ArbCom acknowledges toxic long-term warriors who are misconstrued as "vested" contributors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Information asymmetry and moral hazard

4) ArbCom acknowledges the marriage of "content" and "conduct" informed by the related concepts of Information asymmetry (ja:情報の非対称性) and Moral hazard (zh:道德风险); and this means less timidity in addressing issues related to content including POV warring, tag teams, academic dishonesty, etc.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I do not understand specifically what you are driving at with this proposal. Please explain in a bit more detail (but only a bit more, please). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

These concepts are illustrated in the diffs of Qwyrxian and Bobthefish2 in one short thread Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 7#U.S. Control prior to 1972. --Tenmei (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Curtailing content disputes

5) ArbCom acknowledges that failure to curtail content disputes has unintended consequences. Misplaced Pages fails when academic integrity is not a priority, e.g., unlike "simple" incivility, the damage caused by editors misquoting, plagiarizing and editorializing affects the credibility of our work.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Transparency

6) ArbCom acknowledges that inadequate transparency in the dispute resolution process limits the ability of the community to find ways to mitigate future problems.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Reasons and justification

7) ArbCom acknowledges that there is a need for ArbCom to explain decision-making, including reasons and justification.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is why we use a somewhat stereotyped, sometimes overlong format for our decisions in full-fledged arbitration cases like this one. I gather that you are alleging that the committee has failed to provide adequate explanation in a relevant, past instance when this dispute was raised before us, but as noted above, I do not recall that and would appreciate a link or a citation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Discretionary sanctions

8) ArbCom establishes discretionary sanctions, which can serve to impose the community's behavioral expectations on new editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Added in response to Jclemens' comment here. --Tenmei (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposal by Qwyrxian

At least for now, I’m not going to write out a full proposal per the template below. I know that Arbcom has some standardized formats and wording that it uses for decisions of this type, but I'd have to actually search through prior decisions to identify the exact phrasings; I feel that current Arbcom members can do that better than I can. In other words, I trust Arbcom to find the proper context and justifications for whatever remedies are taken.

As for actual remedies, my proposal is quite simple:

• The topic of Senkaku Islands, broadly defined, is placed under discretionary sanctions, and possibly placed on 1RR. Note that, given that Liancourt Rocks is already under sanction, and it seems believable that other similar areas could become problems as geo-political disputes arise (East China Sea, Spratly Islands, Kuril Islands), there may be some sort of benefit to drawing a wider net on sanctions, but I don’t know if that’s actually warranted or where exactly the boundary should be drawn.

• Bobthefish2, Tenmei, and STSC are indefinitely topic banned from articles relating to Senkaku Islands, broadly defined, and may appeal this decision to the committee no earlier than one year from the time sanctions are imposed.

• Bobthefish2 is additionally warned that tendentious editing and baiting other editors are not acceptable, and that WP:CIVIL is a policy, not a suggestion. Further violations of this policy anywhere on Misplaced Pages will result in blocks.

• Tenmei is additionally instructed to learn ways of communicating more simply and effectively on article talk pages. While all editors must take some responsibility for handling variants in English register and dialect, at some point WP:COMPETENCE comes into play and Tenmei’s overlong and confusing talk page comments have come very close to breaching this point. Furthermore, Tenmei is reminded that consensus determines what is "pro-Misplaced Pages", and that xyr belief in the rightness of xyr actions does not entitle him to any special treatment or deference in content disputes.

• All editors are reminded of the need to assume good faith in the actions of other editors, to use the dispute resolution process to handle arguments, and to not engage in tendentious editing.

• Finally, as I said in my opening statement, while I don’t want Arbcom to “rule” on the content issue, if Arbcom has any suggestions for a mechanism whereby we could establish a lasting rule that would not be subject to indefinite challenge, then I believe that such input would be helpful.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Among the several misguided recommendations, one that I find particularly glaring in your proposal is that you advised an indefinite block on STSC when he's not showing an attitude that's more BATTLEGROUND than many others (including yourself). To my knowledge, neither you nor other people had attempted to warn him or correct him on whatever problem you perceived. If anything, your indef block recommendation for STSC appears to be yet another indication of a battleground mindset. It would also raise questions as to whether or not you are actually ready to be an admin. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

As for Tenmei, I think his biggest problem is his philosophical/abstract long arguments with graphs. If he promises to stop it and to talk and focus on specific issues like other editors do, I don't think the ban is needed. But once he post that abstract wall of text again, the ban should be applied. Oda Mari (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

What about his various vile personal attacks on other people like , , , and ? Do you think they should also cease with his philosophical/abstract long arguments with graphs? Or should they be permitted to continue? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think they are personal attacks. Oda Mari (talk) 10:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposals by Oda Mari

I agree with Qwyrxian's proposal on topic ban. Plus, Lvhis should be indef. topic banned on Senkaku related articles. As I pointed out in my evidence, Lvhis has been concentrating on Senkaku related articles/talks too much.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I suppose the 3 of us (Qwyrxian, Oda Mari, and myself) at least agreed that Tenmei should be blocked. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposals by Bobthefish2

Proposed principles

Template

1) I am a person who will take responsibility of his actions as long as I feel rules and criticisms are applied to everyone in a fair manner. The following are measures I consider to be appropriate based on my Analysis of Evidence below :

1. Tenmei, Phoenix7777, John Smith, Magog the Ogre, Qwyrxian, STSC, and myself are admonished for incivility - Since all of us had authored comments that could be consider to be offensive
2. Tenmei, Phoenix7777, John Smith, Oda Mari, Qwyrxian, STSC, and myself are admonished for battleground - Since all of us mistrusted each other (for good or bad reasons)
3. Tenmei is topic blocked for 6 months from these articles - Since there is no debate on how destructive he is and how little he actually contributes
4. Everyone involved in recent edit-warring are admonished for edit-warring - Since these actions prevented progress
5. Tenmei, John Smith, and Qwyrxian are admonished for false edit-war/GAME accusations against me - Since these misguided campaigns were particularly slanderous
6. Magog the Ogre and Qwyrxian are sanctioned for misconduct as administrators - For everything I said here
7. Everyone involved is advised to take a 3-month wiki-break from the articles of concern to cool-off
8. An experienced supervising administrator is assigned to monitor future discussions and serve as a mediator that actively promotes good faith between editors (which is something that could've helped)

Beyond all this, I am willing to apologize to everyone I've supposedly mistreated, but I will only do so if other parties would apologize for their own inappropriate behaviour (if any).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User Lvhis

Proposed principles

The substantial reason for such hardly solvable dispute finally bringing involved parties to here is mainly due to that the dispute is tightly related to an international territory dispute, as said "this is another example of an ethnic-national dispute of a type that gives rise to a great number of disputes on Misplaced Pages, including a significant portion of arbitration cases. ". As one of involved parties, here I just propose some principles rather than assert which particular party or parties should be banned or admonished, which I believe Arbitrators can make their right decisions based on their experience and on their analysis of all evidence provided.

Misplaced Pages and its important policies: NPOV, No original research, and Verifiability

1) The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopaedia, and this effort is best achieved based on its Five pillars. Core content policies for these Five pillars are Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view (:NPOV), Misplaced Pages:No original research (:NOR), and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability (:SOURCE). These core content policies should be re-emphasized for this Arbitration case as they are even more critical in solving the dispute on Misplaced Pages pages related to ethnic-national dispute. In terms of NPOV here, Misplaced Pages shall not be forced to take side when its pages involving international territory dispute. In terms of NOR and SOURCE, the use of Misplaced Pages for advocacy for one side of such international dispute with editors own original research or opinions from unreliable sources, is prohibited. Using original research is prohibited not only in editing the pages in question, but also in discussions about editing the pages because such original research has impeded and will impede reaching consensus on editing as well as collaborative editing. Such original research is usually POV or national POV as specifically for the pages in question.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'd disagree with one thing. Original research should be allowed in discussions (i.e. deciding whether an RS is right or wrong). In a discussion that took place previous to your participation , we've had a number of Japanese RS' that made false interpretations and claims about a Chinese primary source article. By the way, that link is a perfect showcase of why discussions are going nowhere with the current lineup of editors. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

NPOV policy and relative guideline should be applied on articles with consistency

2) The current case is very similar to the case Liancourt Rocks that has been an example in the guideline WP:NCGN#Multiple local names. To solve current dispute and reach consensus, all involved parties/editors, and future editors, should learn to compromise to avoid giving the impression of support for a particular national POV. It is important to apply Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy and relative guideline with consistency on similar articles. Otherwise, dispute will keep occurring not only on the pages of the current arbitration case bur also on the other page. The reputation and credibility of Misplaced Pages will be damaged.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT again? Please see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Evidence#I didn’t hear that the Liancourt Rocks was the common name. Oda Mari (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

All parties/editors should obey the policy WP:CIVIL

3) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example 6

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

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

Edit-wars and Gaming the System

Note: Most of the diffs were taken from evidence page.

I saw that Qwyrxian commented in his evidence that I have a willingness to game the system (xe advocated getting the page locked so that people give up and leave. I'd say this is very untrue. Rather, I intended to petition an admin to lock the page due to the great deal of disruptive editing and borderline edit-warring going on. This sentiment, ironically, was echoed by Qwyrxian back then :

heck, I even find the comments of some of the editors on what (Bob perceives as) "our side" to be frustrating. It's a difficult environment to work in when even changes of 2 or 3 words are argued over ad nauseum -- Qwyrxian

While my intent was simply to petition an admin to protect the page in a legitimate manner (which I did , and I even requested another editor not to engage in edit-wars ), a number of editors thought it's a good idea to go after me. First, I got this warning from John Smith accusing me of edit-warring (is that the only way to get a page locked?). Then he continued to accuse me of edit-warring. After putting me through all the crap, he finally did manage to bait me into saying some not very nice things about him and then he started whining about being treated poorly . Tenmei also did not help with matters. Rather, he fanned the flames and endorsed John Smith's motion.

Ironically, these pages were eventually locked for reasons related to their actions and not mine. As it turns out, they edit-warred with some other editors and exhausted Nihonjoe's patience . Then just days later, they'd get another page locked over another edit-war .

As if the matter would end (or I would receive any apologies - yeah like that's going to happen), Tenmei asserted that the pages were locked because I had somehow magically manipulated them into edit-warring .

Food for thought, guys.

And before we forget, here's a friendly reminder: This entry is about accusations of gaming the system, edit-warring, and being nasty - which were all directed at me. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

That was just one example. If you want another example, your defense here, in this section, is another. You made a claim in two places that you should get the page locked--not because there was edit warring at that moment, but because you thought it would make people leave. You said that explicitly in your comment to STSC (and your choice of articles where people should go further points to your intent). This is your standard practice: make a statement that is provocative, offensive, insulting, or otherwise questionable, then come up with an elaborate justification to try to demonstrate that you always meant well and you're always the victim. But you're not--you're the instigator, the cause, the point from which the problem flows. I sincerely believe that a careful examination of your overall editor behavior shows this very conclusively. This is not to say that you don't have strengths (your careful explanation of Google searches was valuable, for instance), but that your negative points far out weigh the benefits you provide, at least with respect to these sets of articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That's rather incorrect. Locking pages does not actually force people to leave. Rather, it renders the article pages impermeable to any changes (including mine) until the protection is lifted. And as I've quoted your younger self back then, you were also quite fed up with my opponents' behaviours too, what caused this change of mind? Oh, and I haven't started with you yet (i.e. the part where you gamed the system with another admin). This is just part of a series to show how several parties here have consistently singling their opponents out for criticisms while being terrible contributors themselves. Your rant about me being the instigator of everything is a show of how unquestionably biased and entrenched you've become. Because, as far as I know, I wasn't the one who caused the arrest of discussions, locking of pages, or the collapse of the mediation. And before you proceed with your self-righteous rants, I'd sincerely suggest you to look at yourself first. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Battleground, Tag-Teaming, and Canvass

I saw that I was accused by Qwyrxian for BATTLEGROUND and Oda Mari for Tag-teaming and CANVASS.

Battleground

To address Qwyrxian's assertion, I would like to show a number of quotes by different editors. In this diff written by Qwyrxian in Feb 4, 2011, he wrote:

I'm not talking about the current problem. I'm talking that every single little change causes either an edit war, a near edit war, or such a massive, overwhelming talk page discussion with both sides pretty much entrenched and non-collaborative. This particular point is just an example. If we don't go into mediation, I can discuss the solution to this particular point, but I don't think anyone is going to like it, and I don't think the current tone on this page is going to allow for a serious consideration of it

While I don't consider myself entrenched, this quote is quite telling of Qwyrxian's own interpretation of events... namely, there is a great deal of stubbornness and an astounding lack of cooperative effort. With that point noted, it's a distinct lack of AGF on his part to accuse me of BATTLEGROUND over diffs where I showed pessimism towards the objectivity of other editors... and again, this is all in a context where he considered parties of either side to be "entrenched and non-collaborative".

Now, this wouldn't be something if I don't show a few examples of "battlegroundness" of other parties:

• - Pro-Chinese editors?
• - Truck load about conspiracies, baiting, etc, etc, you name it
• - An ArbCom statement accused Lvhis of canvassing the support of a Chinese admin; Accused opponents as SPA; Statements like mess began after 2010 Senkaku boat collision incident and was caused by some Chinese editors driven by their nationalism at the incident.
• - ANI opened on Penwhale for being Chinese admin who commits COI
• - ArbCom statement about how editors who dispute too strongly give the impression that they are trying to reclaim the islands on behalf of the government which claims previous ownership.
• And pretty much everything from that previous section about edit-wars where some people went on a wild campaign against some phantom edit-war conspiracy.

Canvass

Next, there's Oda Mari's allegation of CANVASS . The simple answer is that it wasn't deliberate even if there was any. The Oct 7 quotes saw me inviting two experienced editor in zh:WP who had recently edited the page. I did consider the page to be quite biased and would like second opinions from zh:WP editors (whom I had no interactions with) to see if that's the case. As the diffs indicated, I did not invite them to any specific discussion and I explicitly asked them to be objective. If that wasn't enough, I'd also point out that (1) I was one month old in WP at the time of writing and (2) Nobody raised any red flags about this (including Oda Mari). The other "canvassing" comment was not a canvass attempt. It was related to this thread where we were debating about naming conventions. Somehow, Phoenix7777, John Smith's, and Oda Mari decided to make claims about the Chinese languages which Lvhis, STSC, myself, and others considered to be wrong. Since a resolution could not be reached between both sides, I raised the suggestion of asking Project China and zh:WP for advice (because this is a matter about the Chinese language). After declaring my intent for numerous times in the thread without being given any objections, Lvhis and I went ahead with that (which is why these "canvass" posts occurred). On a less related matter: This discussion is part of a side-show of the Mediation that failed and an indirect cause of Mediation failure. Namely, Phoenix7777 made similar complaints about CANVASS, the MedCom defended our actions, and he then attacked the mediator forcing the Mediation to a close.

Tag-Team

Since Oda Mari considers my collaboration with STSC and Lvhis to be tag-teaming, then I should show some examples of talk-page-based collaboration of other people. Reading these diffs is not required. They are just listed for reference:

1. About baiting -
2. About baiting -
3. About being Pro-Misplaced Pages -
4. About opponents being single purpose accounts who aren't here to build an encyclopedia -
5. Something about ridiculous and collaboration -
6. Something about pro-Chinese editors -
7. and so on ... Here's a link to plow through the rest of Tenmei's contributions in talk pages

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Abuse of Administrative Authority

Lvhis (see "Improper conduct with double standards and gaming the system ruined efforts preventing edit-warring") and I (see "Magog_the_Ogre") raised the issue of possible misconduct on the part of two admins (specifically, Magog the Ogre and Qwyrxian). The context of this matter lies on the fact that he blocked Lvhis over a BRD interruption while exempting Tenmei from the same sanctions. The following are notable red flags associated with this ordeal:

1. Magog the Ogre demonstrated an inability to handle and understand criticisms regarding his decisions. He made it clear that the questioning was getting on his nerves and he forced a closure to the exchange in an unsatisfactory manner. After the matter was brought over to another admin who opined disfavourably towards his administrative decisions, he proclaimed that done nothing but trolling since you and I have been talking even though this matter constituted the bulk of my recent experiences with him and I was also quite civil during all that for the most part.
2. Qwyrxian took Magog's side and claimed there were flaws in Lvhis and my arguments but had failed to produce the actual refutation despite being repeatedly prompted to. Specifically, I cited the flowchart on BRD and documented how BRD was broken in a step-by-step manner and he was invited to show how that logic was wrong.
3. Qwyrxian appeared to have openly gamed the system. Tenmei declared a wiki-break from the associated article pages just as I started my inquiry into his block exemption. Qwyrxian declared that since Tenmei was on wiki-break, he should not be given a block. Shortly after I stopped pursuing the matter (due to the obvious disinterest of admins to correct the situation), Tenmei returned from his wiki-break and started breaking BRD again.
4. Qwyrxian and Magog the Ogre filed this ArbCom case in response to Tenmei breaking BRD again. They protected the article pages and concluded that multiple users have shown themselves unable to either understand or abide by the , even though the far majority of editors respected Magog's rule. Of the two individuals who broke BRD, Lvhis apologized sincerely and had been very compliant with Magog's standard ever since (such as consulting Magog over every step of the BRD ). Tenmei, on the other hand, was really the only editor who was not adhering to the rules imposed by Magog. As I've shown already, Magog did not appear very open to critiques and refused to justify his conclusions. By extension, Qwyrxian also appeared to have mishandled the situation by condoning this course of action.

It's possible that I am wrong and that the admins I raised questions about handle matters in a completely fair manner way that I somehow cannot comprehend. But in the event that I am actually correct, then it may be practical to consider whether or not flawed leadership of authority figures are, in fact, very important contributors to the overall problem (in Qwyrxian's case, it'd stretch back to the time before he became an admin).

With everything said, I would like to conclude this remark with the presentation of a classic Chinese idiom "上梁不正下梁歪" , which has the following meaning:

"When the higher-ups (or parents) do not set a good example, the subordinates (or children) cannot be expected to behave well."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Just a note that my support of Magog the Ogre's decision to not block Tenmei the first time was solely while wearing my "editor's hat". I have never taken administrative actions with regards to these article or any of the participants, nor would I ever do so. I do believe that Magog the Ogre should have blocked Tenmei the second time, but I don't believe that that makes his decision to protect the article instead in any way "abusive" since the disruption stopped, at least on the article page. If the Committee cares, I can provide my long, detailed explanation of why the first block on Lvhis was proper (based on Magog's terms previously set terms for the article) but the first offense by Tenmei (prior to his alleged wiki-break) did not deserve a block; however, they may prefer to draw their own conclusions on the matter. I will, however, agree with one other thing that Bobthefish2 said in reference to these events--I find Tenmei's swift return from his "wiki-break", and the way he returned (re-inserting clearly non-consensus changes) to be highly questionable and part of Tenmei's greater WP:MPOV problem. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this does not diminish your role in all this. Magog has clearly erred in his judgment. You could've stood up for what's right, but instead you gamed the system for Tenmei through wiki-lawyering. It appears an advantage of the ArbCom is that you are now expressing a willingness to explain your support for Magog's decision, which is an explanation you refused to provide in the past. Suppose you are to provide such an explanation, I would like you to respond directly to this post and explain why BRD was not broken by Tenmei. I will change my mind on this if you can provide a sufficient explanation for this double standard.

Protecting the article in response to Tenmei breaking the rule is inappropriate and an abuse of administrative privileges because, as far as we know, he was the only person to willfully disregard the rules imposed by Magog the Ogre. The fact that the two of you exaggerated the number of violators (i.e. single instead of multiple) and refused to allow your decisions to be discussed also casts doubt on your professionalism and ethics as administrators. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: