Misplaced Pages

talk:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration | Tang Dynasty Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:54, 2 June 2009 editEnkyo2 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers58,409 editsm →Stop← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:59, 13 June 2009 edit undoFloNight (talk | contribs)Administrators20,015 edits courtesy blank page 
(72 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Arbitrators active on this case==
{{ACA|Tang Dynasty=yes}}
{{#ifeq:|yes|
'''Active:'''
#Cool Hand Luke
#Coren
#FayssalF
#FloNight
#Jayvdb
#Newyorkbrad
#Rlevse
#Roger Davies
#Stephen Bain
#Vassyana
#Wizardman


'''Inactive:'''
== Tenmei's WP:TLDR winning again over the valid concerns on his incivility and harassment ==


'''Recused:'''
I do think so. Various editors addressed their concerns that Newyorkbrad's initial proposals at the Workshop are not enough, and too soft given Tenmei's repeated disruption, but the final decisions are even softer than the first one. ANI can not stop his incivility and he has harassed me to expose my name to ANI, and he wikistalked me and attacked all editors even arbitrators during the ArbCom case. As looking other ArbCom cases, such behaviors are immediately sanctioned as a temporary injunction (Macedonian, Obama, Date Delinking, and others). However, Tenmei who did the horrendous behaviors even can evade from ArbCom due to his TLDR argument that includes his various attacks. I'm very disappointed by the impractical decision.-] 20:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
#Carcharoth
#Casliber
#Kirill Lokshin
#Risker


}}<!---
:I am of the opinion that the ArbCom case should also cover Tenmei's disruptive behaviours elsewhere, and I feel the appropriate sanctions should be placed above. In fact, I feel Tenmei should at least get a mentorship, if ArbCom feels an outright ban is inappropriate.] (]) 20:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
-->{{#ifeq:|yes|
::I wonder Arbitrators even read thought the whole evidence and workshop page where Tenmei excises various uncivil comments because of his too long argument. Tenmei even gave me personal attacks while NYB finished up writing the final proposals. But why the mentorship suggestion (thought he was informally mentored) is not considered. --] 21:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
'''Active:'''
#Casliber
#Cool Hand Luke
#Coren
#FloNight
#Jayvdb
#Kirill Lokshin
#Newyorkbrad
#Risker
#Rlevse
#Roger Davies
#Stephen Bain
#Vassyana
#Wizardman
#FayssalF


'''Inactive:'''
==Rejecting "Locus of dispute" as written==
#Carcharoth
This specific "proposed finding of fact" should be rejected as written.


'''Recused:'''
A new, better locus of dispute should be adduced.


}}<!---
I write to encourage votes in opposition; and I hope those who have already voted re-visit this because the first and last sentences are fundamentally flawed.
-->{{#ifeq:|yes|
'''Active:'''
#Carcharoth
#Cool Hand Luke
#Jayvdb
#Kirill Lokshin
#Newyorkbrad
#Rlevse
#Roger Davies
#Stephen Bain
#Vassyana
#Wizardman


'''Inactive:'''
<u>NO to 1st sentence</u>. The case originated when ] rejected any and all inquiry relating to ], ] and ], alleging ] and ] instead. This persistent ''confrontational strategy'' is endorsed and encouraged by those voting in support ]'s locus of dispute. These votes effectively disregard , and, most importantly, Teeninvestor's restatment at . This obfuscation marginalizes even the attempt to pursue a ''strategy of collaborative editing''; and for this very practical reason, I could not disagree more with this sentence


'''Recused:'''
<u>NO to 3rd sentence</u>. In the specific context of this case, it is procedurally unsound to adopt the expanded scope proposed by ] and ]. One of the few areas of agreement acknowledged the initially limited focus of our case when it was opened. I could not disagree more with this sentence.
#Casliber
#Coren
#FayssalF
#FloNight
#Risker
}}<!---
--->{{#ifeq:|yes|
'''Active:'''
#Carcharoth
#Casliber
#Cool Hand Luke
#Coren
#FayssalF
#FloNight
#Jayvdb
#Kirill Lokshin
#Newyorkbrad
#Rlevse
#Roger Davies
#Stephen Bain
#Vassyana
#Wizardman


'''Inactive:'''
In support, I highlight a crucial or between "A" and "B" below:
#Risker
}}<!--
-->{{#ifeq:yes|yes|
'''Active:'''
#Casliber
#Cool Hand Luke
#Coren
#FayssalF
#FloNight
#Jayvdb
#Kirill Lokshin
#Newyorkbrad
#Rlevse
#Roger Davies
#Stephen Bain
#Vassyana
#Wizardman


'''Inactive:'''
:*A. ]'s analysis and paraphrases ]'s measured language :
#Carcharoth
::"We appear to confront a small scale replica of what has occurred in other, wider disputes ... informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point of this escalating drama:
#Risker
::* 1. "What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?
::* 2. "What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does the source reflect that consensus?
::* 3. "Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?
::* 4. "Are unsourced assertions being used?
::"As others will know better than me, these four points are, unsurprisingly, at the center of most protracted disputes <s>and are all violations of our core content policies</s>, e.g., ], ] and ]."


}}<!--
::*B. ]'s rejection is entire and :
-->{{#ifeq:|yes|
:::'''"This guy is out of control, man."'''
'''Active:'''
#Carcharoth
#Casliber
#Cool Hand Luke
#FayssalF
#FloNight
#Jayvdb
#Kirill Lokshin
#Rlevse
#Roger Davies
#Sam Blacketer
#Stephen Bain
#Vassyana
#Wizardman


'''Inactive:'''
In this instance, ]'s paraphrase of ]'s moderating analysis was posted on the talk pages of all arguably interested participants at ]. The "out of control" accusatory phrasing was repeated in diffs on the talk pages of ] and ]. This suggests a deliberate strategy rather than a merely transient outburst.
#Coren


'''Recused:'''
In these pivotal diffs, ] cannot ''feign'' to have misunderstood my writing. These are plainly Coren's paraphrased words; and yet, this modest effort to frame ''collaborative editing'' issues was immediately converted into a contrived hostile encounter. This destructive pattern is reflected ''ad nauseam'' on the evidence and workshop pages. Despite the cumulative attacks, the edit history confirms my participation focused on issues, but this outcome tells me clearly that I was wrong to take the high road.
#Newyorkbrad
#Risker
}}<!--
-->{{#ifeq:|yes|


'''Active''':
In voting to support this awkward ], ArbCom's judgment effectively affirms that the contributions of ] and ] were above reproach and I was not.
#Casliber
#Cool Hand Luke
#Coren
#FayssalF
#FloNight
#Jayvdb
#Kirill Lokshin
#Newyorkbrad
#Rlevse
#Roger Davies
#Stephen Bain
#Vassyana
#Wizardman


'''Inactive:'''
This alchemy is difficult to digest. ArbCom rewards what is bad and denigrates what is good. --] (]) 18:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
#Carcharoth
#Risker


'''Recused''':
===Workshop===
This attentive focus on the locus of dispute is also found in my workshop contributions. ]'s proposed findings of fact at were opposed. --] (]) 20:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


}}<!--
===Remedies ===
-->{{#ifeq:|yes|
Five remedies are proposed, but I don't understand how to convert these terse aphorisms into something meaningful and timely.
'''Active''':
:*1. I recognize the practical reasons for avoiding ] and ]. I can comply with this ArbCom directive, but I don't understand the verb in the sense that it can be construed as a punishment for misconduct. It is fair to say that ]'s so-called "evidence" and other contributions are designed to ensure that I would get "disadvantage from the decision." I adopt ]'s language below as a restatement:
#Cool Hand Luke
::"His topic-ban is just imposed to "one" article, and he does not edit Chinese/Mongolian related articles. Therefore, there would be very low chance for Tenmei to meet Teeninvestor. <u>He would not get any disadvantage from the decision.</u>"
#Coren
:*2.
#FayssalF
:*3.
#FloNight
:*4.
#Jayvdb
:*5. In principle, the '']'' continuing jurisdiction is crucial. In practice, ]'s characteristic focus on my "disadvantage from the decision" makes continuing jurisdiction more important than in other cases. This ArbCom case could have been something other than a ], but there you have it.
#Kirill Lokshin
#Newyorkbrad
#Risker
#Rlevse
#Roger Davies
#Stephen Bain
#Vassyana
#Wizardman


'''Recused''':
ArbCom confirms that I'm the in this dispute; but I can't feign to be contrite because I simply do not understand. In this case, core values are confounded when ArbCom rewards what is bad and denigrates what is good.
#Carcharoth
#Casliber


'''Away or inactive''':
] can't be averted if the dispute resolution fails to devote adequate attention to those who most need to understand how to parse ]. --] (]) 15:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
}}
:<small>''To update this listing, and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.''</small>


{{notice|The talk page comments have been blanked at the request of the participants in the case. The content previously on this page should not be restored, but may be reviewed in the page history if necessary. ]] 00:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)}}
== Another list and "disruptive" canvassing by Tenmei==

Given Tenmei above rant to the very generous final remedies, I wonder why Tenmei listed the all Arbitrators and their email addresses onto his talk page. I do not want to assume that it is another ] (me, Nick-D, LordAmeth). However, his canvassing to arbitrators to strongly demand for revising the "Locus of dispute" that he does not like is beyond my understanding of his behaviors. -_-;; His topic-ban is just imposed to "one" article, and he does not edit Chinese/Mongolian related articles. Therefore, there would be very low chance for Tenmei to meet Teeninvestor. He would not get any disadvantage from the decision. However, why does he cause more troubles for himself doing this? As proposed, Mentorship would be better for him.--] 19:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
:If the posting is just for the canvassing, he may delete it after his mission is fulfilled.--] 19:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
::Tenmei's canvassing is disruptive and needs to stop. I hope this can show ArbCom the need for stronger measures.] (]) 19:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

] My modest effort to frame ''collaborative editing'' issues was here converted into a contrived hostile encounter. This pattern is emblematic; and it destroys any hope for anything but confrontation to ensue. I don't understand how or why this is left out of ArbCom's decision-making process. I can at least ], but that doesn't really do much to suggest alternative which could have avoided this problem at the outset. --<s>] (]) 19:54, 30 May 2009</s> ] (]) 19:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
:]--] 20:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

== Another canvassing and obsession of Tenmei ==

*I'm very sick and tired of Tenmei's persistent obsession with me and agenda of hunting me down. He has canvassed today to editors' talk pages where he previously wikistalked my edits, and harassed me regardless of the fact that he was all irrelevant of my discussion with them. <u>The current ArbCom enforcement on him is purely due to his disruption and incivility</u> to the article in question but he still tries to antagonaize me all over the place. He gloated with sending messages of my activity and mocked me with various insulting naming calling. Unfortunately the ArBcom does not care about his "continued harassment", and inappropriate behaviors.
*Two admins in good standing but are marked as Tenmei's enemy (just like User:Mattisse's plague list), and have expressed their concern on Tenmei. Tenmei has to see that almost all editors consider his behavior very disruptive to the community, but in his canvassing, I'm on the spot light again. He thinks that he did not do wrong. Why would the committe not regulate this kind of behavior? I do not want to meet this guy's relentless disruption any more.--] 19:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
:I'm going to paste it to the Evidence section.--] 19:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

===] is crying wolf ===
NO. No ] would complain about this seemly posting. This what I wrote:

::'''Seeking help in presenting thoughts clearly'''
::I write to ask for prospective help. In a sense, I'm only interested laying the foundation for the future. Perhaps this may be construed as taking steps to avert problems might be mitigated by a timely comment or suggestion ...?

::'''ArbCom remedy'''
::Voting is underway at . In part because of , the was modified and "evidence in the case has expanded to include other disputes in which Tenmei has been involved." You will be surprised to learn that ] has anything at all to do with this so-called "evidence" at . I don't think this timeless prose is worth struggling to read, but I mention this to explain a bit more of the reasons why I'm reaching out to you specifically.

::ArbCom findings of fact included:
::* . "... many of Tenmei's talkpage posts and submissions during this arbitration case have been very difficult for other editors to understand, to the point that experienced participants in dispute resolution have had difficulty in following them, despite what we accept as Tenmei's good-faith best efforts to assist us in resolving the case."

::ArbCom remedies included:
::* : "Should Tenmei become involved in any further disputes with other editors, whether concerning the content of articles (beyond ordinary day-to-day editing issues) or more formal dispute resolution procedures, he shall seek the assistance of a volunteer mentor or adviser to work with him in maximizing the value of his presentation by assisting him with formulating it in a clear and civil fashion."

::* : "Editors who encounter difficulties in communicating with others on-wiki are advised to seek help from others in presenting their thoughts clearly, particularly when disputes arise or when dispute resolution is sought."

::It is clear that ArbCom anticipates future difficulties; and I guess I need to do the same. Arguably, my previous postings on your talk page are congruent with exactly the sort of thing ArbCom wants me to do in future; and I'm willing to invest in learning about how to disagree without being disagreeable.

::If you want to discuss this off-wiki, feel free to contact me at tenmei1781@gmail.com.

Who's kidding who? --] (]) 21:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

: Definitely, I think that Tenmei should stop his disruptive behaviours.] (]) 22:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

== Tenmei's another verbal abuses ==

See the above name callings, ad hominem attacks and blatant canvassing by Tenmei--] 20:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
*'''Crying wolf''', and '''long-term toxic warrior''', etc

:Who's kidding who? When I delicately tried to seek help during the period in which I was working on the workshop page, an inquiry about how to disagree without being disagreeable was converted by ] into harassment -- offered as evidence of long-term harassment <u>and</u> offered as proof of wikihounding and trolling? ... <u>and also</u> offered again as a basis for an injunction? This is overreaching. This is wrong.

:What's going on here? ArbCom allowed this toxic long-term warrior to become the central figure in our ArbCom case without giving me any way to know that the locus of dispute had changed. Now, when I begin to make tentative gestures to find a constructive ], the little boy who cried wolf intrudes yet anew. --] (]) 20:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

===What I want from the ArbCom is to stop Tenmei harassing me===
See another naming calling. I just do not want this guy comes near me. This long-term and disruptive harassment by Tenmei should be stopped by the Committee.--] 21:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

====Stop====
'''What harassment is not'''
{{shortcut|WP:HA#NOT}}
This policy is aimed to protect victims of genuine harassment which is meant to cause distress to the user. Unfounded accusations of harassment ahouls be considered a serious ].

::No ] would draw this conclusion.
:::NO -- Your role as posturing victim is not credible in the context of your own words in this ArbCom case. The word "harassment" has a very significant wiki-meaning. It is not to be used casually. You have used this loaded term with extravagant excess. It must stop.

::In "evidence presented by Caspian blue," there were many so-called examples of harassment, including this , which is small.

::There was nothing untoward in attempting to offer a consoling gesture to someone who had been crushed in a dispute which I didn't understand. As I recall, ] had been overwhelmed by the kind of tactics I was only begin to recognize as characteristic. I didn't understand it, but I found it pointlessly hurtful. In November, I posted the following:

:::]'''A plausibly calming thought?'''
:::]
:::The seasonal colors of autumn leaves -- perennially expected, but always a bit of a surprise ....

:::] explains : "One thing about myself, I really don't like "orange color" which is the ] to blue."

:::Are you familiar with the Latin phrase, ] -- perennially expected, but always a bit of a surprise? --] 19:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

::This is not harassment I can't imagine what motivated you to use this term in this setting; but in part, I suspect it is because I didn't respond in the ways you'd anticipated. I was guided by one sentence from the top of the evidence page. I took it as an admonishment -- "Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior." I now see that it was wrong to do so.

::There is much I don't understand about how Misplaced Pages really works -- as contrasted with hortatory policy pages, but I do know that a serious complaint about harassment requires something more substantial than autumn leaves. --] (]) 01:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:59, 13 June 2009

Arbitrators active on this case

Active:

  1. Casliber
  2. Cool Hand Luke
  3. Coren
  4. FayssalF
  5. FloNight
  6. Jayvdb
  7. Kirill Lokshin
  8. Newyorkbrad
  9. Rlevse
  10. Roger Davies
  11. Stephen Bain
  12. Vassyana
  13. Wizardman

Inactive:

  1. Carcharoth
  2. Risker
To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.
The talk page comments have been blanked at the request of the participants in the case. The content previously on this page should not be restored, but may be reviewed in the page history if necessary. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)