Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:15, 26 April 2009

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Teeninvestor

What more can I say? I feel I have presented enough evidence to show that the article has reached a stable version and the source is verifiable. Nevertheless, I shall address these complaints once more.

Alleged misuse of sources

I feel that the "alleged misuse of sources" is overhyped. I have provided the source, with full bibliographic information, and a link which demonstrates what I said it would be- a Chinese history book. This was confirmed by user:Penwhale. In addition, no errors or anything else was reported from this source, either by Tenmei or any of the editors whose opinions I solicited. Tenmei has admitted he has no knowledge of the subject, and made a very unreasonable demand that all citations must include all the text in original Chinese, as seen here: diff. This is not only unfair but it would cause wikipedia to be unable to use any foreign-language soruces. This source is a reliable, verifiable source that has been provided with standard bibliographical information. Previous doubts about the source were raised, but it was deemed reliable by the community, as shown by this linkdiff

Misplaced Pages's policy is that a source should be provided with bibliographical information, and perhaps a link confirming its existence and purpose(etc... it is what the author says it is). Tenmei seems to be unable to understand that. Arbitrators, can you explain this? That a book, once SOURCED WITH CORRECT INFORMATION AND A LINK, IS LIABLE TO BE USED. For example, this Chinese-language source is used at Tang dynasty, a featured article: "http://engine.cqvip.com/content/f/91697x/1998/000/004/jj01_f1_3317535.pdf". Nevertheless, the featured article review team did not feel it necessary to demand "the original text in Chinese, put into a citation on the article" which is what Tenmei demands.

The source itself is a history book published in China from a reputable publisher in that country. Its authors have published several similar books before(this is is an annual renewal/publication, I have the 1998 version).

In addition, the information in this article is verified by three more sources I have added to the article-

• http://books.google.com/books?id=J7fFhc2VM5sC&pg=PA145&dq=Tang+Xueyantuo&lr=&ei=LWbZSdDnA6G2zQSbvozACA#PPA144,M1, Marc Samuel Abramson, Ethnic identity in Tang China, ISBN 9780812240528,
• Book of Tang, "http://www.njmuseum.com/rbbook/gb/25/xingtanshu/xts.htm"
• Zizhi Tongjian, "http://www.guoxue.com/shibu/zztj/zztjml.htm"

All three of which is online, and can verify the Chinese history source I have used. These sources show the information in this article is correct and NPOV.

In addition, Pericles of Athens has recently found information from another source "China's Imperial Past" in which he confirmed the information in the article(and the source in question) is correct, as shown by this diff diff.

User:Tenmei doesn't understand WP:V

User:Tenmei have yet to shown how my source is "unverifiable". So far I have a) provided full bibliographical information about the source b) provide page numbers for citations c) provided a website for the source(which has been screened). It seems Tenmei's obstinacy(as can be shown by the section "tenmei's behaviour") is the main reason for this dispute, rather than any problems with the "source". In fact, he needs to reread WP:V and verify HIS claims.

WP:V states that:Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.. This criteria is met by this source(a big reputable publisher).

Verifiability is "Verifiability in principle" not instant verifiability for every reader. I believe these two following links can illustrate clearly that the consensus is for foreign language sources to be provided with the same bibliographic information as ENglish ones, and to provide a translated portion only when a direct quote is made. According to Tenmei, every citation from a source with a language other than English must have in the citation an extensive translation of the passage used. This is simply unacceptable and is clearly violative of wikipedia policy, as shown below. The editors have interpeted this policy in a way that is much different, and I think, more workable than Tenmei's.

• Norwegian sources
• French sources

Screened by User:PericlesOfAthens and User:Penwhale

In addition, the source has been screened by the two above users and the information as well, and they have shown the information to be perfectly correct as well as the history book being what I said it is: a history book.

Unfortunately, user:Tenmei did not check the above source, as well as the four above sources I mentioned. I believe the problem with the "sourcing" is best summed up by this diff: diff

The above two users have stated the information of the source is correct and the source was presented with correct bibliographic information as to allow the reader to verify the source; however, Tenmei's attempts to construe it as unreliable and POV, is extremely disruptive, as shown by later statements.

Note: By screened I mean the above two users have visited the link I provided and confirmed that the link stated what i said it stated.

Tenmei's behaviour

If there is one issue worthy of being dealt with here, it is Tenmei's inability to communicate and work with other editors, as well as respecting his consensus. Other editors have expressed concerns about this, but it was ignored by him and sadly he brought this to ArbCom, disrupting other editors whose efforts could have been used elsewhere.

Tenmei, despite his lack of knowledge on the subject, is very tentedious and engages in long, difficult-to-understand arguments that disrupt the consensus. As shown here, other editors have raised concerns about this:

diff diff

Other editors have repeatedly warned him, only to have their advice ignored. In his extreme, Tenmei even engaged in vandalism, as shown here, on the article Salting the earth, in which he wanted to merge the article in question into. THis was a clear case of vandalism and disruption of WP:POINT. He is unable to communicate or be understood by other editors. diff

In addition, Tenmei treats other editors with disrespect, striking out their comments. He also does not understand several key wikipedia policies, such as WP:Point. This is perhaps best illustrated here: diff diff

Tenmei also seems to have a troubled history on wikipedia, as evidenced here: diff diff

(added) a simple use of WP:ANI's noticeboard function turned up even more drama for this user. diff Also, these disputes on talk pages. diff diff

This user has edit warred and repeatedly violated consensus, as well as engaging in tendetious editing; Just like the current dispute, his obstinacy, edit warring, lack of communication skills and violations of wikipedia policies have gotten him nowhere. Lately he even engaged in vandalism in his absurd proposal to merge Salting the earth with inner asia during the Tang dynasty.

Other editors warned about his incivility, disruption, and even vandalism here: diff diff diff diff

Recently, he referred to fellow editors as "ilk" and decleared that edit warring was the "only practable way to proceed", as shown here: diff

Third opinion on Tenmei

In addition, other users expressed opinions about him here: diff and here: diff(where he made a bland, disgusting attempt to insult another user of engaging in a "conspiracy").

Tenmei's abuse of the dispute resolution system

Rather than seek consensus with other editors such as me, Pericles, Arilang1234, and Kraftlos, Tenmei used the dispute resolution system to hound other editors into submission and as a tool to get his way. He has also engaged in canvassing. I believed these views are best summarized by the below diffs: diff diff

He has tried this tactic before to get his way in a dispute with user:Nick Dowling: diff diff

I recommend a speedy close to this case and some sort of sanction for Tenmei so he does not again abuse the dispute resolution system to hound other editors.

Evidence presented by Tenmei

Introduction. Conflation of issues is a common theme in archived ArbCom cases -- no less in this case than in Franco-Mongol_alliance or PHG. I initiated this ArbCom case to address three narrowly-focused issues which were sometimes conflated in the broader context of a fourth. In the alternative, Teeninvestor seeks to leverage or re-frame my temerity as the sole issue, conflating all issues into perceived problems with my "behaviour."

Teeninvestor cast a wide net to find evidence, investing more time in searching for "evidence" to discredit me than in trying to identify common ground. I don't understand why this wasn't wrongful WP:Canvassing; but it doesn't matter because Teeninvestor tactic proved to be unexpectedly beneficial. It helped me in re-focusing attention on the arc of my contributions. What matters most are the ways in which the quality of my contributions have been improved by participating in disputes, no less than what I have learned from other Misplaced Pages experiences.

The measure of ArbCom's success will play out in whatever manages to improve the quality of future contributions from the participants in this case. The initial layout of issues from my perspective is seemly and on point.

In my view, ArbCom's goal is to articulate and explain Misplaced Pages policies which provide a context in which an article is created.

Asserting RfA "Issue #1"

ArbCom intervention is needed because attempts to assert WP:V as a point of common agreement became an illustration of temerity. This ArbCom case begins with the temerity documented in the following:

• 1-A. 02:52, 14 March Tenmei added "synthesis"-headnote and "original research"-headnote
• 1-B. 02:54, 14 March Tenmei added "dubious"-tag at end of 4th-¶
• 1-C. 02:54, 14 March Tenmei added "dubious"-tag at end of 3rd-¶
• 1-D. 02:55, 14 March Tenmei added "dubious"-tag at end of 2nd-¶
• 1-E. 02:58, 14 March Tenmei deleted "unsourced, unverifiable text" from 1st-¶
• 1-F 03:24, 14 March Tenmei added Dubious posting: inconsistent with WP:V
• 1-G. 03:25, 14 March Tenmei deleted "deleting material incompatible with WP:V--see talk"
• 1-H. 00:34, 15 March Teeninvestor reverts DELETING A SOURCE YOU DONT AGREE WITH IS WIKI:NPOV

The edit summary above attributes an inappropriate or improper POV as the explanation for my allegedly wrongful edits.

The edit summary below complains instead about deletions which are construed as unexplained, implying my passive failure to provide data with which to form an opinion, but also implying a pro-active campaign to exacerbate a dispute in which conventional wisdom is likely to adduce that "it takes two to tango":

• 1-I TALK 20:47, 16 March 2009 "The point is that you are disrupting an article and deleting text without explanation ...."
• 1-J TALK 20:49, 16 March 2009 "... deleted large, sourced sections without explanation."
• 1-K 3RR 01:13, 17 March "... repeatedly deleted content without explanation ...."
• 1-L TALK 01:19, 17 March "... reverted sourced, verifiable material without explanation."
• 1-M 3RR 11:26, 17 March "... reverted without explanation."

Teeninvestor has variously construed my edits -- and indeed my attempt to use the dispute resolution system -- as a kind of effrontery, as played out in this short exchange:

• 1-N 3:05, 15 March Tenmei posted creating "Zero information ..." sub-section of thread
• 1-O 16:06, 15 March Teeninvestor posted "Done. Sourced with page numbers."
• 1-P 16:12, 15 March Teeninvestor posted "This is passive obstructionism."
• 1-Q 16:16, 15 March Teeninvestor posted "You JUST VIOLATED WP:CONSENSUS, MY friend."

The question for ArbCom becomes one of suggesting alternate strategies which could have mitigated this evolving problem? Whatever happened, it wasn't caused by something which can be adduced from within the unfolding diffs above.

Asserting RfA "Issue #2"

WP:V incorporating WP:Burden rejected by Teeninvestor -- diff.

Two adjacent diffs -- and -- are linked in Teeninvestor's complaints about my alleged "disruptive behavior." A cursory review of the edit history refutes this hollow complaint.

The subject of the following is WP:V incorporating WP:Burden:

• STEP 2-A: Non-standard citation format -- diff

• STEP 2-B: Difficult-to-parse text -- diff; diff

• STEP 2-C: References -- diff

• STEP 2-D: Inadequate citation -- diff; diff; diff; diff

• STEP 2-E Tang Taizong did not give khagan title to himself -- diff; diff; diff; diff

• STEP 2-F Ethnic affiliations of the Khitan -- diff

• STEP 2-G Storm in a teacup -- diff; diff

Teeninvestor's accusation falls apart under closer scrutiny.

In contrast, G Purevdorj observed that while most of the Mongolia work group just perceived the vandalism and were flabbergasted that they were alone in doing so, your involvement at least managed to provoke evidence that is obvious for anyone to see.

The question for ArbCom becomes one of suggesting alternate strategies which could have mitigated this evolving problem?

Asserting RfA "Issue #3"

WP:RSUE incorporating WP:Burden rejected by Teeninvestor -- here. The subject of the following is WP:RSUE incorporating WP:Burden:

Summary:

• 3-A. March 16 -- diff: Teeninvestor claims that text was verified -- simple past tense
• 3-B. March 27 -- diff: not verified
• 3-C. April 8 -- diff: not verified
• 3-D. April 22 -- diff: not verified

For redundant clarity, these diffs demonstrate that it was not disruptive to seek further clarification, as I have felt compelled to do -- even to the point of initiating this ArbCom case in the absence of any other practicable option.

The question for ArbCom becomes one of suggesting alternate strategies which could have mitigated this evolving problem?

Asserting RfA "Issue #4"

Issues identified above became conflated in real-world disputes, e.g.,

• 4-A. "article is a battlefield"?
• 4-B. "Mongols have hijacked ]"?
• 4-D. "this can show that mongolia was owned by chinese before mongols ever appeared, and belongs to china"?
• 4-E. "i am pro REpublic of China and affirming republic of china claim to mongolia"?
• 4-F. "vain attempts to create a supposedly "Mongolian" identity, considering Mongolia itself was a Russian creation"?

The title of Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty suggests something to do with the history of 7th-8th century Central Asia, but an unexplained backstory or subtext intruded in the development of the article. Problems encountered in this article are emblematic of problems affecting unrelated editors and articles.

Teeninvestor argues that these issues are mooted by subsequent edits -- diff.

Teeninvestor proposes changing the article name to Tang-Gokturk wars -- diff.

The question for ArbCom becomes one of suggesting alternate strategies which could have mitigated this evolving problem?

ArbCom's purpose are fulfilled when the process affects more than just the parties' concerns and issues. WP:V and academic integrity must be an indispensable priority because, unlike "simple" incivility, the potential damage destroys the credibility of our encyclopedia. --Tenmei (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Yaan

I am not very familiar with arbitration, so I pre-emptively ask for forgiveness if I violate any formalities.

User:Teeninvestor has failed to show understanding of WP:RS

While it seems Teeninvestor understands WP:VERIFY (like here), he has several times failed to show understanding of WP:RS. Although the latter is just a guideline as opposed to a policy, I think it is quite crucial to Misplaced Pages's quality. Its sixth sentence reads "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." (Emph. mine).

In a small edit war, Teeninvestor has several times added maps from Commons as "sourced":

• .

He has justified the re-addition of removed text with "Links provided prove that the book exists."

• .

When asked, he was unable to point out why the authors of the source he used most often (more than 50% of the citations in the current article) should be "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". In fact, I get the impression he knows nothing about the authors of said source.

• .

I don't think that "You don't have any source to show that my source is wrong" (My inference from Teeninvestor's proposed principles for this arbitration, , ) is enough to establish the reliability of a source. In any case I therefore reject these two proposed principles I just linked to.

Yaan (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Nick-D

I have not had any involvement in the Tang Dynasty article, but Teeninvestor (who I don't think that I've had any previous contact with and have no comments on) placed a note on my talk page noting that I'd been involved with Tenmei previously and asking what my opinion of them is. As I'm mentioned in his statement under my previous user name of Nick Dowling I'll comment on his comments on Tenmei's behavior; I have no views on the other issues under discussion in this RfA.

Tenmei's behaviour

I was one of several editors involved in a dispute with Tenmei over the Hyūga class helicopter destroyer‎ article (the essence of which can still be seen at: Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer). On the basis of this experience I endorse Teeninvestor's comments on Tenmei's behavior, and can confirm that the details he posted relating to the dispute on this article are correct. In this dispute Tenmei created a massive mountain out a molehill concerning a single sentance by posting vast and uncivil messages in which he never actually explained his position, despite repeated requests that he did so. He deliberetly sat out the process of developing consensus text on the issue in question and, in a clear WP:POINT violation, 'reset' (his word) the debate after consensus text had been endorsed by all the other involved editors (). Despite the involvement of several other editors Tenmei personalised this dispute on me in a manner which, to be frank, I found disturbing. An attempt at mediation initiated by Tenmei collapsed before it began when I withdrew after he started canvassing against me with a highly disruptive editor - this obviously wasn't a sign of good faith! (). Following this Tenmei continued his peronalisation of the conflict upon me by attempting to start a RfA on me, which was swiftly rejected by Arbcom.

Tenmei was warned against his behavior over this article repeated times (, , , , and are a few examples). As he has continued his highly disruptive pattern of posting vast quantities of text in arguments, making uncivil comments and personalising disputes ArbCom should consider imposing sanctions on Tenmei if this RfA is accepted. Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Coldmachine

As with Nick-D I've no previous involvement with the Tang Dynasty article or this latest content dispute which involves Tenmei. I am responding here to a note placed on my talk page indicating that an ArbCom case had been filed and that, owing to my previous interactions with the filing party – in particular on Hyūga class helicopter destroyer where I attempted to mediate within an ongoing content dispute – my views on Tenmei's behaviour would be of assistance to the case and to the Committee.

Tenmei's behaviour

It is my experience that Tenmei means well in his/her approach to editing on the project; a number of articles have been improved in line with content guidelines, most notably WP:V, and the work of this editor must be considered - in my opinion – with WP:AGF in mind. I am without a doubt certain that Tenmei is guided by an underlying desire to better the encyclopaedia. The problems seem to develop during interaction with other community members.

While Tenmei seems guided by high standards in terms of editing content, s/he also seems unable to engage with the process of consensus building in a fashion which would yield an effective outcome. Tenmei has been warned about obstructing the process of consensus building – which I witnessed in an attempt to ‘reset’ discussion, for example - and for refusing to present arguments in Plain English preferring an overly elaborate and convoluted presentation of views which could be considered disruptive editing – a behavioural guideline which covers any “campaign to drive away productive contributors...that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.” Other editors have commented on this also, for example here and at ANI.

While I have no knowledge of the current case, and would wager that this is rather another content dispute which needs to go through dispute resolution rather than waste the time of the ArbCom, I do believe that – despite good editing intentions and strict adherence to content policies – Tenmei’s inability to engage with his/her fellow editors is of concern and may therefore be of separate but relevant interest to the Committee. Coldmachine 22:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Bueller007

I have no prior history editing in the topic at hand. I was contacted by Teeninvestor to make a statement. I'll put it simply and more civilly than I have elsewhere:

• Tenmei means well.
• Tenmei (like myself) is argumentative, obstinate, and sometimes snarky.
• Unlike myself, he is quick to resort to mediation, arbitration, (etc.) seemingly to the point where I would almost consider it "abuse of the system".
• It is my personal opinion that he frequently edits on topics he knows little-to-nothing about, and does not heed the advice of people who know better. In the small portion of his edits that I have looked at, there have been a number of grievous errors.
• Many of his edits are well-sourced but unproductive, IMO, plaguing Misplaced Pages with Misplaced Pages:Too_long;_didn't_read, like his comments that you see above. His edits often reduce the readability of Misplaced Pages significantly, even when they are factually correct. Use of tl;dr to "win" arguments seems to be part of his M.O.
• For the most part I have given up trying to correct errors and tl;dr in his articles because I don't need the inevitable hassle.
• As I'm largely ignorant of Chinese history I hesitate to say who is "correct" in the matter of the article at hand, but if references have been provided, and an "expert" has looked at the article and approved of it, then there shouldn't be a problem in making the statement. Using multilingual people from around the world to bring expertise from other languages into English Misplaced Pages is one of the great benefits of the system. It looks like English references have also been provided, so what's the problem? Bueller 007 (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Penwhale

My statement may be incorrectly interpreted by Teeninvestor

I did not screen the book in any way. What I did was merely translated the page linked at the time. The page is a description from a Chinese on-line bookstore.

My statement posted needs to be taken as literally as possible; the information I provided was merely information gained from translating the description of the on-line bookstore.

And to be specific: I did not look at any text of the book itself; I cannot judge whether it is actually a history book without actually looking at the book.

Thus, I feel that Teeninvestor may have misconstrued my original statement. - Penwhale | 01:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Caspian blue

Tenmei's long-term harassment

I'm not totally uninvolved and have tried not to be part of the dispute largely because I fear revenge campaigns by editors who have relentlessly harassed me for a long time (7 months to 9 months); one is the already mentioned abusive sockpuppeter who has been chronically blocked by my ANI/RFCU reports after his socking, racist attacks and vandalism to East Asian subjects, and the other is Tenmei (talk · contribs). The former is already banned user, so I just need to bear his vandalism for a short time, while Tenmei has been lurking my activity and pounces back whenever he seizes a moment. Then why I write this? Because I have to protect myself from Tenmei's further harassment and Wikihound and which would be better for the community. I briefly commented Teeninvestor's proposals on April 25, Tenmei resumed to attack me again unlike others' comments, and went to some admin to harass me again regardless of my previous stern warning to him on the admin's talk page. So yeah, if he did not provoke, I would've just remained to comment to the Proposal page regardless Teeninvestor (talk · contribs)'s repeated requests for me to give my evidence. After some research, Teeninverstor thinks I have a very strong case to prove Tenmei's long disruption.(1, 2)

Given his history, I knew Tenmei do something drastic to this Tang dispute and against Teeninvestor for making WP:POINT and WP:Wikilawyering and noticed that Tenmei began hounding Teenivester just like he did to me. I assumed if I would report his second 3RR violation in my observation, he might've made another bogus ANI report or attacked me regardless of the fact that I did not edit the article at all. Then he would've focused on me to harass me further because I've been marked as his enemy along with admin LordAmeth (talk · contribs) and Nick-D (talk · contribs) on Tenmei's user page. I naively thought that if my favorable statement for Tenmei gets this arbcom case accepted, his wikihounding of me will be decreased and learn how to communicate with others. However I was totally wrong, because I still have to bear his continued and increased harassment before and after the case was open. He even proposed a motion to include me as a party with his conspiracy theory and mocked about my log to get himself out of the incivility and vandalism accusation. I think some of Tenmei's typical behaviors are well shown in his "own" documentation for this ArbCom case; inability of abiding by WP:AGF, WP:Civil, WP:NPA, WP:Consensus, WP:Point, WP:NPOV, WP:Harassment, WP:Troll, WP:Dick. This repeated disruption should be stopped by the ArBCom's intervention.

I first encountered Tenmei for a merge discussion which was supposed to have no controversy, but he suddenly without any reason attacked my ethnicity and taunted my ancestors and my edits to other articles totally irrelevant of the subject. Then out of blue he nominated the article in ongoing discussion to AfD, and demonized me during the whole AfD discussion. I asked help to LordAmeth who was in the merge discussion and has observed him for a long time. He suggested me to take it to ANI, so I did and LordAmeth gave him a long warning. After some research, I realized that I'm not the only victim of his harassment; admin Nick-D and other editors also were harassed by Tenmei for just one sentence. Just like Nick-D's ANI report on Tenmei, my report did not make him changed a bit because of his too lengthy and unintelligible ramblings. Since then I have had to endure Tenmei's harassment and trolling.--Caspian blue 01:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Tenmei's hollow and WP:POINTY accusations against Teeninvestor

If arbitrators take time in looking into Tenmei's allegations, you will notice that something beyond his initial accusations are added. I'm bemused that Tenmei takes my mention onto his list of accusations agaisnt Teeninvestor such as PHG's ArbCom case, articles that use the Teeninvestor's Chinese book, RS notice board and the vandal's socking and activities to East Asian articles. Tenmei seems to consider my comments and activities as his inspiration by checking my activities to DYK discussions on Chinese ancient sources as well. (more to come)

More to come

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.