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)

I also concur with discretionary sanctions. In fact, I'd like to ask--is there any editor or uninvolved party who thinks discretionary sanctions would be a bad idea? I, for one, believe that this is the absolute minimum possible remedy for these articles and the editors involved. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:54, 8 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)

Well, then we have a problem don't we? It appears some people have a pretty biased interpretation of what's a personal attack based on who authored the messages. I'd advise the arbitrators to take a look at this. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that an immediate topic-ban on Tenmei might be a bit too harsh, but I agree with Oda Mari that if he doesn't change it's the only way forward. Maybe a trusted editor or administrator that speaks Japanese fluently should speak with him in his first language to explain what it is that he's doing wrong and how he needs to change if he doesn't want to be topic-banned. Maybe someone has already tried talking to him in Japanese, but I thought it was worth at least suggesting. John Smith's (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

@John Smiths' -- The underlying presumptions in this thread are at odds with something you wrote very recently. At the outset of this case, you will remember having written this: "We have tried to get outside views, but no editors are willing to stick around and help move things forward. Which is understandable, and Misplaced Pages can't force people to come along to resolve problems .... as an opportunity to stop escalation." Your words characterize and summarize my strategic edits thus far:

• "tried to get outside views" -- an outside perspective, yes
• "willing to stick around" -- patience and persistence, yes
• " to help move things forward" -- forward-focused, yes
• "to come along to resolve problems" -- distilling unstated premises, yes
• "as an opportunity to stop escalation" -- mitigating escalation, yes

In other words, yes -- we cannot solve our problems with the same thinking which was used when the problems were created; and at the same time, yes, everything must be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler. --Tenmei (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Tenmei, however you put it across, the fact it's very hard to understand what you're getting at does make it hard to reach consensus on how to make edits, as much as other users' bad behaviour does. It's your call. You can carry on writing far too much, in far too convoluted a way and possibly get topic-banned, or you can decide to be more concise. Do you actually understand this point? "Yes" or "no" will do, thanks. John Smith's (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian's proposal to have me and Bobthefish2 indefinitely topic banned is absolutely disgraceful. That would be an insult to the Misplaced Pages Project if he thinks he can use this procedure to silent the opposition to his point of view on the article. STSC (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to silence the opposition--if I were, I would have called for a topic ban of Lvhis, which I didn't, since I don't think xe's done anything to warrant a topic ban. I'm trying to get the people who are disrupting the process to stop their disruption. As I mentioned elsewhere on this page, I am not certain a topic ban for you (STSC) is actually necessary; you have written a lot of very extreme statements on the article talk pages, but at least you are rarely disruptive on the actual articles. I'd personally be comfortable with no topic ban for you so long as you agree to stop making attacks on other editors. Bobthefish2, though, despite the good things he has brought to the discussion, is, on the whole, a net negative whose only goal is to win through attrition and who simply doesn't understand/accept that civility is not an option.

Now, having said that, I took a look back at some of the diffs that Bobthefish2 presented here and elsewhere, and I have slightly revised my opinion about Tenmei. Before, I didn't want to attribute too much of his attitude to malice, but some of those diffs appear to be more than just hyperbole, and do cross over into the category of incivility (and possibly personal attacks, though the line is subtle). Mind you, some of the attacks are correct (Bobthefish2 is deceptive, is toxic, etc.), but still, the problem should have been handled through other channels. Of course, this doesn't change my recommendation at all--Tenmei still needs to be topic banned from these articles, and the (possible) attacks don't excuse a long-term strategy of misbehavior by Bobthefish2, and he still needs to be topic banned. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course you are; to destroy all the opposition dose not look good on your ridiculous proposal, does it? I made comments on other editors' behavior and they are not personal attacks. And please don't speak as if you're in such a high authority because you're just another editor on this case. STSC (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

This thread does reveal some of the systemic problems we have with this current lineup of editors. For example, it does appear there is a cabal of editors whom, despite the obviously massive violations by Tenmei, advocated leniency for him while advocating indefinite blocks for their opponents who were not anymore BATTLEGROUND or UNCIVIL as this cabal.

Another thing that became more obvious is that some people have a selective interpretation of what's a personal attack and what's not presumably depending on who's involved. For instance , Oda Mari didn't consider it was offensive to tell people to "put up or shut up" or that describing some editor as another's shill in a cups and balls game.

Finally, Q has again pressed his propaganda of this so-called "long-term strategy of misbehaviour" that was supposedly adopted by me. He also, at various times, accused me of not having an intent to contribute to Misplaced Pages and tried to derive some sort of sinister motives out of my actions. I don't think admins should be running smear campaigns on their opponents on a matter. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

@John Smith's: Tenmei has already had several mentors, as a result of his last encounter with Arbcom. They didn't help. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Tenmei#Outside view by Nick-D. Tenmei has himself said that not only is his type of editing acceptable, it's good and necessary. Since Tenmei flat out refuses to change his writing style, I don't see what else we can do (apart from the very narrow hope that a native language mentor would somehow change things) Just to provide one more example, the clerk for this case removed Tenmei's graphs from his evidence, per an unpublished rule that says that arbitrators don't want graphics in arbitration cases. Of course, it's not Tenmei's fault that he didn't know this rule. What is his fault is the massive thread he's posted on the clerk's page insisting that this case is an exception and that the clerk "lease do whatever you need to do so that graphics can be posted on the evidence and workshop pages" (see ). I still don't know whether Tenmei simply simply doesn't get it or is just so certain that xe is right that everyone must bend to his will. It doesn't matter, because the disruption is real and must be stopped. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:02, 6 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 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)

Bob, as I explained here, when you and other editors discussed or argued whether the interpretation of some RS on other (a primary) RS was right or wrong, or neutral enough, that is not Original research. You were discussing the primary RS (here your example is a Chinese article) instead of creating some point purely belongs your own original research. What I proposed above is regarding pure and clear-cut Original research like insisting "the Japanese name is the real English name" even opposed by given several RSs in line with neutrality. --Lvhis (talk) 18:01, 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) The problem of some editors sometimes did not behave in line with WP:CIVIL has occurred in most, if not every, of cases submitted for Arbitration. My proposal about this is nothing new and is very simple: we just follow what the policy WP:CIVIL has stated.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Users with Administrative Authority involved in these pages

4) Users with administrative authority for managing such hot pages should restrictively obey the policy WP:SYSOP, of which "Expectations of adminship" should be more emphasized. As stated in "Care and judgement" of that policy and lessons in this case as raised in my evidence, unitary standard should be applied with fairness and consistency to enforce any sanctions to prevent edit-warring. This is the way that can keep such sanction effective, and also keep the administrative authority being real neutral. Those users authorized with adminship but have been involved in the dispute as regular users are still expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful manner as stated in the parts "Administrator conduct" and "Accountability" of that policy, including obeying the policies mentioned above Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:No original research, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, and WP:CIVIL.

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: STSC

Proposed principles

Neutrality must be maintained in the articles

1) Misplaced Pages must not let any editor use this procedure to silent other editors (namely STSC, Bobthefish2 and Lvhis) who honestly try to correct and improve the articles which have been unbalanced and biased.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

What is the real motive behind Qwyrxian's bringing up this procedure?

1) I had never received any complaint from him and he had never discussed with me regarding the allegations in his evidence. Then, all of a sudden, he dug out some of my old arguments with other editors in the talk page about one years ago (as he could not find any real evidence) and then ridiculously accused me as "causing the bulk of the problems". This is just character assassination. It's normal that there are heated exchanges during discussion in a talk page; I made comments on other editors' behavior in general but no personal attacks. Moreover, Qwyrxian was not even involved with the articles at that time and would not have known the real circumstances. He is so egocentric that he thinks he can judge anyone by his own "interpretation". Why is Qwyrxian desperately trying to build up a case against me soon after I strongly opposed him to be elected as an administrator?

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Sorry, but, are you joking about the RfA bit? Your logic doesn't make any sense, as I'm also trying to get Tenmei and Bobthefish2 banned from the articles, even though they supported me in my RfA, and I'm not trying to get Lvhis banned from the articles, even though Lvhis also opposed me. In other words, there is absolutely no correlation between your !vote on my RfA and my actions here. As to why I dug up those diffs, it's because, in preparation for my evidence, I went through every archived discussion on both Talk:Senkaku Islands and Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute, as well as quite a number of the conversations had by the participants in other places like user talk pages. That's when I found your comments from before I was an editor on these articles. When I put your more recent actions in the context of those older comments, it became my belief that your attitude is overall incompatible with collaborative editing with respect to this topic. However, as I said elsewhere, I would be comfortable with you continuing to edit so long as you agree to accept consensus decisions and participate helpfully without treating the articles or their talk pages as a battleground.

Finally, I reject your idea that what I do with judgment is different from what anyone else does in the world. Everyone judges based on interpretation. There is no such thing as "judging based on facts"; everyone takes in sensory data, and filters it through his/her own preconceptions, biases, paradigms, and world views, and then judges what those "facts" "mean". There is no such thing as a literal meaning of words, or a fact which can be detached from an associated point of view. Then, when we want others to concur with our interpretations, we attempt to persuade them that our interpretations make sense. So, yes, my claims about your words are my interpretations, but that's only because it would be impossible for them to be anything else.

Of course you would be selective on your targets to hide your motive. And please don't speak as if everyone is under your mercy on this case. You still continued to be silly and ridiculous in saying, "my claims about your words are my interpretations, but that's only because it would be impossible for them to be anything else." STSC (talk) 03:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, and perhaps Bobthefish2 was strategically !voting for Q because he knew it would pass anyway, and wanted to stay on his good side. Of course, I don't necessarily believe this, but going by your logic we might as well start questioning everyone's motives. IMO the fact that STSC is even proposing an idea so palpably silly (that Q would ignore his best judgment on 3 other editors just to make his sinister agenda against 1 editor - STSC - look stronger) speaks to his poor discernment for the facts on the ground. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not an obscure speculation at all. Lvhis and STSC are hardly ranked among the most disruptive editors involved and yet they were nominated to be indefinitely banned by two administrators. And that's all without any attempt to go through any DR's to addressed their supposed problems. Good faith or not, this is evidence that administrative tools should not be entrusted to people who exercise poor judgment when they are involved in a dispute. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I have never once suggested Lvhis be topic banned or blocked (i.e., only one admin has), and I have further clarified that I do not believe that STSC needs to be banned if xe is willing to commit to following consensus and dropping xyr battleground mentality. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a bit unclear: You advised for STSC's ban and Magog advocated Lvhis' block. By the way, it is unethical to criticize single STSC and I with regards to "battleground mentality". Reasons is that, based on your definition, practically everyone of us here (barring infrequent participants like Penwhale) harbour some rather substantial extent of battleground mentality. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I've presented my evidence justifying why I think STSC's behavior is fundamentally different--nothing unethical about arguing that one set of behaviors is different from another. At this point, it's up to Arbcom to figure out if my interpretation is sound. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see the "fundamental difference". The diffs I provided have shown that others have done pretty much the same. Such as suggesting there is an "ulterior motive on the other side" and deriding others' posts/contents as POV. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It's called back-stabbing, it seems in all those days he had been quietly plotting to silent me. He did not even have the courtesy to raise any issue with me personally. STSC (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not really backstabbing, because he never really did betray you in anyway. I doubt he really plotted against you either. I suspect he simply thought it's a good opportunity to get rid of another opponent, since I don't think you were any more rude or entrenched than the average active participant here... but then again he may be genuine about his expressed perception (although that doesn't make is any less misguided). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

He should feel ashamed now you defended him, but his knife is still stuck on my back, what shall we call it? STSC (talk) 04:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

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.

Banning Oda Mari from using Twinkle

1) Her contributions record has shown that she has been trigger-happy with the Twinkle and she repeatedly used TW to revert good-faith edits in the articles without a valid reason.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think this really belongs to the overall issue of edit-warring. Banning a user from using TW doesn't prevent bad-faith reverts. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Oda Mari didn't abuse Twinkle. It's only abuse if the revert button is used without additional comment. The problem, if anything, like Bob says, is edit warring. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Removal of adminship from Qwyrxian

2) Qwyrxian's statement, "Even though STSC disputes my interpretation, I still believe this statement ("the title with the Japanese name is never NPOV as long as Japan is one of the participants in the territorial dispute") implies he will never accept the name Senkaku, no matter how many times consensus favors it; this refusal to accept consensus is antithetical to collaborative editing."

It is absolutely ridiculous by any standard. Does he think he is God deciding everything according to his "interpretation"? My mind feels violated by him. Misplaced Pages cannot have someone with this kind of extreme egocentric mentality to be a fair administrator.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See above. All judgment is interpretation, period. And I would humbly submit that desysoping me is far beyond the scope of this Arbitration, since I have never once used my tools with respect to these articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Other editors would not have confidence in you being an admin; that's why you should be removed from adminship. STSC (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Theoretically, it doesn't take an actual abuse of administrative tool to disqualify an administrator. All it should take is a few instances of serious misconducts as a user. Admittedly, I take my standards from the outside world where administrators are expected to be close to perfect (at least in a professional forums/projects). Since administrators are practically tenured for life in Misplaced Pages, I wouldn't be surprised if admins get a free pass for whatever they do. Speaking of which, I still haven't had the time to really muster any substantial effort to deal with Magog's evidence. I thought what he wrote is a pretty indicative that he's not mentally suited to be an admin. But again, I wouldn't be surprised if he gets away with everything he said (along with all the lies, insults, anger, pettiness, etc). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I might point out that Q was adminned by the community in the midst of this dispute, who was well aware of his conduct. This is an absolutely terrible idea (I'm surprised it's even being proposed) - he didn't even use his admin tools nor one time invoke his admin authority to imply he was in higher standing than any other editors (not to mention that he acted blamelessly otherwise - though there is no point in arguing this as Bob and STSC surely see it differently: it will be up for ArbCom to decide). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

A policeman does not need to misuse his authority and devices to be fired. All he needs to do is to show he cannot be trusted with them. But yes, the arbitrators have to decide whether or not Qwyrxian's show of judgment is what would expected of an administrator. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, I've just found out that at least some members of Arbcom do hold the principle that admins can be de-sysoped even if they haven't misused their admin tools (see Misplaced Pages Talk:Requests for adminship#New standard for de-admining. So that part of my objection was unfounded. Of course, I still don't think I did anything that would even come close to justifying removal of the mop, but just thought I should update that part of my point was wrong. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Making disproportionate/unbalanced accusations, battleground mentality, launching smear campaigns on other people, gaming the system, harassing other users... But still, I suppose that's not as bad as what Magog did. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Fully-protection of the articles

3) The cooling-off period should continue until the dispute of the articles' title is resolved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Magog the Ogre

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Tenmei's pattern of speech has been disruptive

1) Tenmei's pattern of speech has been disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Bobthefish2 has engaged in a pattern of trolling

2) Bobthefish2 has engaged in a pattern of trolling in order to gain a hand up in the dispute. His edits have been primarily geared toward trolling.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• A lot of the examples provided by Magog in his evidence are flimsy. Much of them are about the use of smileys and making mildly sarcastic comments. While I have made a few impolite statements in the past, it's rather disproportionately mild compared to many of the personal attacks committed by other people quoted in my evidence. The fact that Magog dismissed my inquiry of his misconduct as an administrator is quite worrisome, especially when I have made a very strong case about my position. Rather than acknowledging the mistake, he called me a troll, a liar, an edit-warring person, and all sorts of nasty stuff. Additionally, he is inaccurate in his claim that I contested Lvhis' BRD-induced block, as I've never ever done that.

I think especial attention should be paid to this diff , which is a sub-page of his user-space that he offered as his current set of evidence. Barring the inaccuracies in his explanation, his overall attitude is immature and barbaric. The fact that he'd advocate an indefinite ban and other harsh measures on me largely in response to this recent dispute and other recent interactions is concerning. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• "... in order to gain a hand up in the dispute ...." In this section, I have no comment about Magog's words except for a phrase which needs further investigation. Magog's word choice fails to be sufficiently specific.

• If Magog is describing the edits of Bobthefish2 as both strategic and tactical, then that needs to be made clearer. If not, why not?

• If Magog's phrase is an acknowledgment that Bob's diffs are pragmatic, incremental steps in affecting the content of articles about the Senkaku Islands, then that needs to be made plainer. If not, why not?

Magog's phrase omits an assessment of the effectiveness of Bobthefish2 and the likelihood that this strategic, tactical, pragmatic, incremental pattern will be recurring and effective in the future. --Tenmei (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose this is yet another post about how I am a very sinister and manipulative person who has a very long term strategy to control the contents of the page and that everyone else is all innocent victims of my evil schemes... --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

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.

User:Bobthefish2 is indefintely banned

1) User:Bobthefish2 is indefintiely banned, and may appeal this decision to the committee no earlier than one year from the time sanctions are imposed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• No reason to goof around about this. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
• See comments above: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku_Islands/Workshop#Bobthefish2_has_engaged_in_a_pattern_of_trolling --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User:Bobthefish2 is banned for a period of one year

2) User:Bobthefish2 is banned for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Definitely a second preference to #2. I don't see Bob reforming, no matter what. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User:Bobthefish2 is banned indefinitely from Senkaku Islands topics

3) User:Bobthefish2 is 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

To clarify my submission #2 above. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User:Lvhis is banned for a period of one year from Senkaku Islands topics

4) User:Lvhis is banned for a period of one year from articles relating to Senkaku Islands, broadly defined, and may appeal this decision to the committee no earlier than six month from the time sanctions are imposed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• The fact that Magog proposed to block Lvhis is quite strange, since Lvhis is one of the most polite and rule-following individual among all the involved parties. This motion sounds more like a retaliatory response to his critiques about Magog misconducts than anything else. See what I wrote in another section in this page: Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku_Islands/Workshop#Bobthefish2_has_engaged_in_a_pattern_of_trolling. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User:Lvhis is indefinitely placed on 1RR/week restriction for all Senkaku Islands topics

5) User:Lvhis is indefinitely placed on 1RR/week restriction for 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

User:Tenmei is banned indefinitely from Senkaku Islands topics

6) User:Tenmei is 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

While I believe Tenmei could one day work on topics related to the Senkaku Islands, he probably should first show the community that he is capable of contributing coherently. Thus he can request from Arbcom that he be allowed to be reinstated after showing this. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User:Tenmei is banned for a period of one year from Senkaku Islands topics

7) User:Tenmei is topic banned for a period of one year 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A close second to above. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

User:Tenmei is indefinitely placed on 1RR/week restriction for all Senkaku Islands topics

8) User:Tenmei is indefinitely placed on 1RR/week restriction for 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

User:Lvhis is warned about edit warring

9) User:Lvhis is warned about edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

User:Phoenix7777 is warned about edit warring

10) User:Phoenix7777 is warned about edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

User:John Smith's is warned about edit warring

11) User:John Smith's is warned about edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

User:Oda Mari is cautioned about edit warring

12) User:Oda Mari is cautioned about edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

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

More Examples of Battleground Mindset/Incivility (Echoing STSC's evidence)

1. Accused placement of NPOV template as Chinese POV-pushing -
2. Seemingly implied Tenmei of being very far in the extreme of the autism spectrum . Possible context given here . Side note: Don't forget the same individual(s) complained vehemently about "forgetting medication" being a vile personal attack . Hypocrisy anyone? ;-)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

OMFG! Absolutely not! I was talking about User:Neptunekh2, a user who self-identified, on her talk page, as being in Category: Wikipedians with Aspberger's; she was eventually blocked under WP:COMPETENCE because, despite her enthusiasm for the project, she simply was unable to contribute non-disruptively. I somewhat vaguely recall another editor suggesting Tenmei might be autistic, and I argued against it. I can't find the discussion though; maybe it was about somebody else. Furthermore, while Magog the Ogre suggested in the second diff that it was possible that Tenmei was somewhere on the autism spectrum disorder, xe explicitly listed it as only one of many possibilities, and simply as a way to try to hypothesize why Tenmei refuses to discuss in ways that other readers can understand. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody said Magog the Ogre insulted him as an autistic person. I simply said your post was congruent with you and Magogs' recent criticisms of Tenmei. Now that we are at this, remember how you and John Smith accused me of listing his country as not a first-rate power? I remember explaining in-depth that I was referring to Austria instead of Britain but neither you nor him would have any of it. So, allow me to cite John Smith's very words here: (not evidence). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

1. Lvhis made an edit. (Bold)
2. It was reverted by Tenmei (Revert)
3. Discussion ensued on the talk page (Discuss)
4. 3 days later Tenmei made a new edit, different from Lvhis's. (Bold)

In other words, Tenemi's last edit in this sequence is the start of a new BRD cycle. If we follow your logic, it would be impossible for Tenmei to ever edit the article again, until someone else edited the article. That is not now nor has it ever been how BRD works. That interpretation would mean you could use BRD to lock out other editors--the first person to start a BRD cycle would essentially always get to start all of the following, particularly for situations where there are only a small number of editors. Tenmei's edit was 3 days later, and clearly a bold attempt to try to break the stalemate on the section by offering a different solution to the phrasing in the lead. Of course, I reverted Tenmei very shortly thereafter, because his edit was terribly biased, but that still doesn't make it a BRD violation (although, as Elen of the Roads correctly pointed out, BRD was the wrong tool and isn't really meant to be something one can "violate"). Lvhis was blocked earlier (July 22) because Lvhis made a bold edit (fine), it was reverted about 12 hours later (fine), and, only 5 hours after the revert, re-inserted nearly the same text that xe had made earlier that day (not fine). There is a radical difference between their actions. Note, as I said before, that I do think Tenmei's edits on August 12 deserved a block, because they were definitely re-inserting a non-consensus version, when he was allegedly on a break from the articles. I even asked Magog to block Tenmei for it. That xe chose not to is, in my opinion, a mistake, but not abuse of administrative power. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian, your interpretation of BRD about Tenmei's August 4 edit is wrong. Let us see here:

1. I made an edit after discussion as a sort of concensus. (Bold)
2. It was reverted by Tenmei ] (Revert)
3. Discussion ensued on the talk page (Discuss). Three days later the discussion was still ongoing because you had joined in as his partner and I had to talk with you first by following BRD's Talk with one or at most two partners at once. If Tenmei wanted to edit this section in his way as he actually did 3 days later that differed from the one he reverted, he should have included his such version in the discussion for discuss. He should have had to wait for the discussion that exactly he started fully finished, then he or anyone else participating the discussion could start next "B" as the "D" satisfied. Otherwise, say, I revert your edit and start a "D", but start my "B" with no need to finish the "D". What is the "D" for here? We just need "BR" → "BR" → "BR" ...? Here I would say one more time the edit I made there was a outcome of certain consensus after "D" when you were absent from that page.--Lvhis (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, Qwyrxian is quite completely wrong with his argument and has apparently not followed the exchange with Magog the Ogre . The problem with Tenmei's violation was that he made a change on a section that was at the D-stage of a BRD cycle. Had he made a change at a different section of the article, this discussion would not have occurred.

While it is possible that this is all a series of good faith mistakes committed by Magog, his distinct lack of an apologetic tone and his confrontational attitude do not give a convincing impression of a good admin making a careless mistakes. Regardless of whether or not his actions and unprofessional attitude can be classified as administrative abuse, it's certainly a type of significantly inappropriate conduct. I'd also say the relentless support of an admin's misconduct by another admin if also a red flag because it demonstrates a serious flaw in judgment and objectivity. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. --Lvhis (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way Lvhis, you should be careful about using things like in place of diffs because your referencing will be inaccurate once a new diff is added or removed in places upstream to this thread (i.e. the number does not automatically update). I think I wrote something about this today, but it appears I accidentally deleted the paragraph before I submitted the post. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in a micro-level debate about the BRD process here. I think you're wrong, you (both) think I'm wrong, ArbCom can sort it out, if it even matters. Finally, though, my adminship has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this forum. I have not and will not ever act as an administrator on these pages. I'm defending Magog because I believe he applied policy, even if not completely correctly, at least within the bounds of administrative discretion and certainly not in an abusive way. It's just like how I defended your position on Remin Ribao, not because I'm drawing some sort of allegiance with you, but because I thought you were right. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

So now you don't want to get into a "micro-level debate"? I don't know what's so "micro-level" with this BRD discussion, since the points we made are pretty simple. It's a shame that you would relentlessly defend a wrong decision, label others as being mistaken, but then refuse to sufficiently justify your position. Idontlikeit much?

And no, I've never said you have any allegiance with Magog. Rather simply, you seem to be becoming progressively more BATTLEGROUND recently. Your support for me in a past issue was appreciated, but it also occurred at a distant past before you became emotionally entrenched with all this. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Re "1-Evidence presented by Penwhale"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Re "2-Evidence presented by STSC"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Re "3-Evidence presented by Lvhis"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Re "4-Evidence presented by Cla68"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Re "5-Evidence presented by Qwyrxian"

Tenmei

The dates of hyperlinks which Qwyrxian selected are these. --Tenmei (talk) 04:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• thread, 16-18 January 2010; diff, 12 August 2011
• phrase; diff, 15 October 2010
• archive, 3-29 October 2010
• diff, 16 October 2010; diff, 17 October 2010
• diff, 15 August 2011

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Re "6-Evidence presented by Bobthefish2"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Re "7 Evidence presented by Tenmei"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Re "8-Evidence presented by Oda Mari'

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Re "9-Evidence presented by User:John Smith's"

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Re "10-Evidence presented by Magog the Ogre"

Tenmei

The dates of hyperlinks which Magog selected are these. --Tenmei (talk) 05:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• diff, 1 August 2011
• diff, 4 September 2011; thread, 4-13 August 2011

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

What is the point of this section? The Arbs are quite capable of reading timestamps, and it frankly just adds to the clutter. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:35, 7 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:

General discussion

Looking forward

ArbCom fails when it "can't see the forest for the trees". General discussion may help mitigate the ways our process falls short.

Bad apples

Magog argues that "censure of the bad apples would be quite helpful." This is only tangential to our primary goal, which is ensuring the academic credibility of the articles in our collaborative editing project. For example, bad apples are a side issue when Qwyrixian highlights the tension between "non-opinion" and "opinion", e.g.,

• diff (3 Feb 2011); excerpt, "... what I'm trying to say is that I believe Bobthefish2 that the Chinese was mistranslated, but I'm loathe to abandon WP:V just based on AGF-ing him".

Rejecting "bad apples" is not the only function of ArbCom, nor will this help us to work out ways to avert similar difficulties.

You are kind-of correct that it's tangential, but the point that Magog and I have made is that the "bad apples" are so bad that they are preventing us from achieving our primary goal. Furthermore, since Arbcom may only rule on behavioral issues, not content issues, there's not much more that they can do than these types of remedies. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Prevention is better than cure

In his initial analysis, John Smith's observed here that "ometimes prevention is better than cure".

The diffs cited by others were selected for purposes which have been made explicit. In each perceived example of misconduct, the question becomes something to do with discovering a plausible antidote or anti-tactic which might have served to "re-frame" or "spin" something better?

Unstated premises

This is modified from Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands#Issues to be mediated

Unstated premises in the scope of arbitration need to be explicit. Some of the foreseeable consequences of some problems are mitigated by identifying them.

• Domino effect. Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute are complicated by the "domino effect" which flows from every step of the articles' development. In our context, "domino effect" is a term-of-art → Zhongqi Pan, "Sino-Japanese Dispute over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands: The Pending Controversy from the Chinese Perspective," Journal of Chinese Political Science, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2007; excerpt, "The possible negative domino effect of the dispute... lies in the dispute’s implications for the wider context of the two countries’ approaches to maritime and island disputes"

• Looking backward. This subject is a battleground.

• Looking forward. Arbitration's structural premise is that all necessary parties have agreed to participate; but not all are joined. In the future as in the past, this subject will attract editors whose single-purpose perspective will skew our collaborative editing process.

• Fact vs. factoid. Our conventional processes and threshold requirements for inclusion in Misplaced Pages are not dispensable when POV is alleged to be a red flag.

• False dilemma. Characterising the participants as "both sides pretty much entrenched and non-collaborative" is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

A few questions are practical and necessary:

• What could any one of us done differently to avert this ArbCom case? What happens after the ArbCom case is closed?
• When where some of the pivotal points at which problems could have been "nipped in the bud"?
• Where were opportunities squandered?
• How were the "bad apples" enabled by the inaction or encouragement of others?

Our investment in this ArbCom process fails if it only results in punative remedies. --Tenmei (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: