Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests: 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:Arbitration Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:56, 29 March 2009 view sourceEnkyo2 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers58,409 edits →Response to Sam Blacketer: suggesting revised perspective?← Previous edit Revision as of 22:10, 29 March 2009 view source Penwhale (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users7,574 edits →Verifiability/Use English/Burdens in proxy battlefield article: Statement/RecusalNext edit →
Line 279: Line 279:


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

====Statement by uninvolved ]====
I suppose I could point out a few things. In the JQCQ link to the book, there was ''no'' author listed; the names listed were rather '''translators'''. I personally have some issue with the description of the book given by the site, however; '''爱国主义''' means nationalism/patriotism, and the two volumes only cover up to the ] (meaning it does not cover anything post-]. - ] &#124; <sup>] / ]</sup> 22:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


==== Clerk notes ==== ==== Clerk notes ====
Line 287: Line 290:


*If necessary, I could be of assistance in reading over the sources, though if I were to do that I would, of course, have to recuse. - ] &#124; <sup>] / ]</sup> 03:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC) *If necessary, I could be of assistance in reading over the sources, though if I were to do that I would, of course, have to recuse. - ] &#124; <sup>] / ]</sup> 03:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
:*'''Recuse''', statement above, as well as my Chinese fluency, makes me better as a participant for this case if needed. - ] &#124; <sup>] / ]</sup> 22:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
*Recuse - administrative involvement with parties/statement givers. I can try to provide some linguistic support however.--] (]) 00:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC) *Recuse - administrative involvement with parties/statement givers. I can try to provide some linguistic support however.--] (]) 00:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


Revision as of 22:10, 29 March 2009

Template:Active editnotice

Weighing scales Arbitration​Committee
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Misplaced Pages Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

Current requests

Verifiability/Use English/Burdens in proxy battlefield article

This template is currently non-functional due to T39256.

Initiated by Tenmei (talk) at 20:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Tenmei

This complaint encompasses 3 specific issues and 1 broader topic. Teeninvestor's refusal to agree to mediation thwarted the opportunity to have his views confirmed or modified. I cannot walk away from this because the concepts are at the very heart of my participation in collaborative writing. ArbCom cannot allow this to go unaddressed because the consequences are too grave:

  • Issue 1: I posted the following diff; and if I was wrong in any part of it, I must know so that I will not continue to make similar mistakes in the future.
Teeninvestor insists that words and actions consistent with this diff are disruptive. If what I've said and done is persistent disruption, it needs to stop.
When I and others questioned an unfamiliar text in Chinese, Teeninvestor asserted forcefully that I and others had the burden to prove error before deleting the edit and/or before posting a "dubious"-tag or a "synthesis"-tag on an article page. This view was expressed with increasing levels of derision personal affronts. Example: diff. If what I've done is persistent vandalism, it needs to stop.
  • Issue 4: In Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty, real-world factions have vied for control, turning it into a polemical battleground. In the venue which evolved before my eyes, long-term warriors have proven to be toxic. Under "battlefield" conditions as I encountered them, academic integrity becomes an all-encompassing priority. Any other course of action undercuts the credibility of the article and our collaborative wiki-encyclopedia. Although Issues 1-3 stand on their own, they have become conflated in real-world disputes over 21st-century borders or oil and mineral rights. The initial impetus for this article was "salting the earth" in an article about Central Asia in the 7th-8th century in order to undercut a dispute in an article about China in the 12th-13th centuries; and the article has been continually attacked by those intending to affect current affairs by re-writing history. This perverts my ability to conribute to an article about a relatively minor topic; and it became increasingly difficult to follow on a coherent thread of reason.
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 unexpectedly again and again. This bigger problem cannot be resolved with this case, but at least ArbCom is now expressly alerted to the existence of a pernicious metastasis which will continue ad nauseam in other articles until effective counter-measures can be contrived. On the basis of my editing experience, this is not an isolated incident. The specifics are limited to the article and parties here; and the ambit of this dispute is also emblematic of problems affecting unrelated editors and articles. --Tenmei (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Response to John Vandenberg

The issues here are quickly devalued and the focus is easily distracted. This is evidenced by Teeninvestor's hollow POV-argument below and in that argument's tentative acceptance by Wizardman, who seems initially inclined to construe a "content dispute" in the empty sound of one hand clapping.

In this Euler diagram, "A"=article and/or non-English language text and "B"=Misplaced Pages policy which provides a context in which the article is created.
In this alternate diagram, "A"=article and/or non-English language text and "B"=Misplaced Pages policy which provides a context in which the article is created.

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

Opinions such as these demonstrate that, despite its obvious clumsiness, the unconventional composite "Verifiability/Use English/Burdens" does need to remain part of the title in order to underscore explicit non-content-related issues. For redundant clarity, I intend that "Verifiability"=WP:Verifiability; "Use English:=WP:Verifiability#Sources (Non-English sources); and "Burden"=WP:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. No one disputes that my wording is awkward, but the development of this thread reveals that Issues #1, #2 and #3 are readily conflated with distracting corollary matters.

In view of what others have posted, I endorse changing the title to read

Verifiability/Use English/Burdens conflated with content issues

In this analysis of Issues #1, #2 and #3, there is no opportunity to perceive a content-specific POV. Nor is there anything to do with WP:NPOV. Nor does it matter whether Teeninvestor's proffered text was published in Urdu, Wolof, Navajo or Chinese. I'm mindful of Misplaced Pages:Silence and consensus; but my restraint in responding thus far should not be taken to imply qui tacet consentire videtur ("He who remains silent is understood to consent"). --Tenmei (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Risker and Carcharoth

If an ArbCom review of Issues #1, #2, and #3 can be helped by contributions "with respect to the interpretation/verifiability & sourcing issues," here are arguably relevant googled links:

In this non-controversial context, a more nuanced vocabulary might develop. This is a practical step, which could be part of what Risker and Carcharoth had in mind? --Tenmei (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Roger Davies

Yes, an otherwise intractable problem is presented; and its parts are easily conflated as a Gordian Knot. Unraveling this knot is well within ArbCom's ability and purview. Crucially, as John Vandenberg observes, "a more appropriate way forward hasn't presented itself."

No, the non-specific "other avenues" you mention are unavailing. The nested, narrowly-focused policy fundamentals are ill-served by abstention, which is neither practicable nor practical. The slim history of this "request"-thread offers proof enough that there is no better venue than this one.

Issues #1, #2 and #3 are ripe. Much of Issue #4 may not be ripe, but abstaining becomes indistinguishable from failure to acknowledge how its emblematic conflation affects every attempt to construe Issues #1, #2 and #3. Candidly, all other dispute resolution venues become mere exercises in futility if your ArbCom colleagues join you in deciding to abstain here. --Tenmei (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Penwhale

With all due respect, I object to anything which causes any potential ArbCom participant to feel recusal is necessary. I would hope for the fullest participation in addressing Issues #1, #2 and #3, none of which require any special language skills. In fact, this has been repeated seriatim in the explanatory language which was drafted to support and amplify the community's understanding of Misplaced Pages's core policies.

We all have no choice but to notice that Teeninvestor does not address the specific concerns I've raised -- as if what I've written were entirely meaningless, insubstantial, impenetrable. Instead, he/she poses an entirely different set of issues which constitute his/her "spin" on the gravamen of dispute; moreover, he/she argues that these alternate issues are not worth ArbCom involvement. On the basis of his/her strained reasoning, the offer to examine books in Chinese is unjustified for at least two reasons: (1) such an examination would do nothing to assist in addressing the issues I raise; and (2) the issues Teeninvestor proposes in the alternative are first to be construed in light of Misplaced Pages policies. In that sense, even if your offer were to be seen as constructive and welcome at some point in the future, it is demonstrably premature at this preliminary phase of ArbCom consideration. --Tenmei (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to FloNight

Your words suggest something which needs to be made explicit in this "tipping point" venue. Are you familiar with George Santayana's common-sense words: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" ...?

As you or others may not know, Wikiquote expands on this theme by explaining that the philosopher's clever turn of phrase has many paraphrases and variants, e.g.,

  • Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
  • Those who do not remember their past are condemned to repeat their mistakes.
  • Those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it.
  • Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors are destined to repeat them.

It is my intent that Santayana's hortatory saying is underscored here in a very plain and non-controversial manner. The not-unexpected ways in which this request-thread has developed are curious. It convinces me that this maxim should have been introduced earlier. In my view, this concept should be factored in whatever process ensues. --Tenmei (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Cool Hand Luke

I wonder if you might be persuaded to re-visit the two-pronged rationale for your vote?

A. Initially, you posit that the "parties don't present this as a behavioral problem," but my Issue #1 statement is expressly couched in terms of my alleged "disruptive editing" and "vandalism." Indeed, Teeninvestor's barrage of complaints at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty and elsewhere are mirrored in his/her focused contributions to this request-thread as he/she points towards
B. The second prong of your explanatory note proposes far more difficult concepts. You worry that ArbCom doesn't "have a clear idea about what we hope to accomplish with arbitration." The answer to your implied question is "Yes, you are correct." This request-thread acknowledges that three specific issues are each married with a "bigger problem" which, in my view, "cannot be resolved with this case, but at least ArbCom is now expressly alerted to the existence of a pernicious metastasis which will continue ad nauseam in other articles until effective counter-measures can be contrived."

In general, I take it that ArbCom is most-often a post hoc forum. There are other unstated assumptions here -- that ArbCom need not re-invent the wheel with each new dispute. The members of ArbCom are uniquely positioned to learn collectively from collective and individual experiences. Towards this hortatory objective, I argue that you should change your vote as a first step in addressing an aspect of a broader metastasis which has proved resistant to other therapeutic interventions.

Individually and collectively, Issues #1, #2, #3 and #4 present an opportunity in which ArbCom's involvement can have significant consequences in the community beyond the parties here; and as a practical matter, as John Vandenberg summarizes succinctly, "a more appropriate way forward hasn't presented itself." --Tenmei (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Sam Blacketer

You are explicitly on point in recognizing that there are no easy answers here. --Tenmei (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how best to rebuff your mistaken view that this is a "highly specialised dispute affecting a very small section of the project." Perhaps there may be cause to reconsider that assessment in light of the following talk page threads:
Perhaps these links suggest a revised perspective? --Tenmei (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Teeninvestor

The problem from my POV is outlined below:

1. Tenmei's misguided editing of the article, despite his lack of knowledge on this article, as shown by this statement:

Example: diff. In working with him, he has deleted many sections without explanation, despite them being sourced.

2. Tenmei's violation of WP:V; Although Tenmei insists I violated WP:V, he has so far refused to provide a single source to back up his claims. This is in itself violative of WP:V. Other users have already informed him of this error, as shown by this post from a respected fellow editor. So far, however, Tenmei has refused to provide a single example or source to support his claims. This, I believe, sums up the main point of the dispute:

Talk:Inner_Asia_during_the_Tang_Dynasty#diff So far, Tenmei has failed to find a single error with the source or the article itself, but he insists on pushing his own POV and deleting large sections of it without explanation.

3. Tenmei's violation of WP:CONSENSUS. In his refusal to collaborate and listen with other editors, he engaged in pushing his POV on others.
User_talk:PericlesofAthens#diff

Talk:Inner_Asia_during_the_Tang_Dynasty#Sources_used Tenmei even engaged in vandalism in violation of WP:POINT, attempting to merge the article with "Salting the earth", as seen here.

4. Tenmei's misunderstanding of the policy with WP:BURDEN:

WP:BURDEN means that I must cite and source my information, which I have done accordingly. His insistence that I provide a "translation" of every piece of information that I used in Chinese is not only unduly burdensome, and would in fact prevent the use of any foreign-language source on wikipedia. This is not to mention that I have not used any direct translations from the book, which I believe the policy refers to.

Tenmei made repeated attempts to impose his POV, even when I was working on other articles. I only hope this committee can put an end to Tenmei's attempts to impose his own POV so me and other editors can use our efforts in more useful matters. To sum it up, a quote about what must be done: Talk:Inner_Asia_during_the_Tang_Dynasty#diff

I would prefer it if Arbitrators did not hear this case, as I believe this is, at heart, simply a misunderstanding of wikipedia policy and a minor content dispute between a majority of editors and one obstinate one; it would be a waste of mine, Tenmei's and arbitrators' time to resolve this. It would reward users for hounding others through abusing wikipedia's dispute resolution process. I believe Tenmei demonstrates the below signs: "http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:DE#Signs_of_disruptive_editing". Teeninvestor (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Yaan

The source I am using is a history book published in China. Also, this adds to my point that this is really the result of a content dispute/obstinacy of one editor, user:Tenmei. It is a tertiary source, I believe(compendium of old histories which were secondary sources). In addition, I provided links for the site of the book, which (unfortunately) Tenmei did not use.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Links to source in question(in Chinese)

Unrelated:

Some books published by the publisher(a well-known publishing house in China) Teeninvestor (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I know that the Inner Mongolian People's Publishing House exists (I knew that before, I even own a book published there), but I am actually more interested in who the authors are. Btw. WP:RS suggests that tertiary sources "should not be used for detailed discussion". Yaan (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
So, is the Li Bo who wrote the book this guy? Yaan (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe it would be a secondary source, as it summarizes ancient histories(primary sources). As to the author, he has the same name, but im not sure it may be the same guy.

"《中华五千年》共上、下两册。每本书都配有史料图片说明，给人以新鲜感、真实感。不仅使你了解中华民族从尧、舜、禹的传说到清朝（鸦片战争前）的历史发展脉络，同时也学习到许多历史、文化、科学、生产方面的知识，受到爱国主义的教育和陶冶." This is the summary of the book found on the site.

Questions about reliability

I think the WP:RN comment as well as links I provided is enough to stifle complaints. This source is a history book published in China, and a legitimate source. I wouldn't say it is "contested".

So far, no one has said anything about: 1. Errors. 2. Unverifiability(links provided) Therefore, it is a legitimate source.

On a side note, I fail to see what ArbCom's intervention will achieve, besides wasting the time of the participating editors. So far, no complaints have been raised about the article Inner Asia during the Tang dynasty which has achieved a stable version. In addition, the sources & links I provided have shown that the book is verifiable. So I fail to see what ArbCom can achieve on this matter, besides allowing Tenmei to demonstrate his rhetorical skills.

In addition, no problems were occured (besides natural disagreeement and argument) in terms of say, edit warring, harassment, etc... I believe that technically there is "no problem" left to solve. Teeninvestor (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Tenmei

Tenmei, you're not getting the point. You have yet to present a single source or other thing rejecting my source, and have not explained any of your reasoning besides using unintelligble bureaucratic doublespeak that belongs more in a government file than on wikipedia. Remember WP:BURO. Also, you have yet to address the concerns of editors such as Pericles and Myself regarding, to put it kindly, what is your problem with the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to FayssalF

I believe, and I will iterate again, this is not a matter for arbitration. It is, at most, a content dispute(in which one editor repeatedly insists on something that without consensus for others). I believe Chinese-language editors are being looked for to deal with this issue. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to CaspianBlue and arbitrators

I do not believe this is a "nationalistic" feud. In fact, I have yet to be informed of tenmei's "issues", so to speak, with the article. What we had was a tag team of editors repeatedly deleting large sections of text with comments such as "Chauvinistic bullshit!", "Reverted vandalism" and the like, without explaining why. When these deletions are repeated without explanation, that is a form of vandalism.

I will reiterate, so far Tenmei has not yet presented a single problem, error, or bias in the article(and neither has any other editors) that was inserted by me. So far, the only concrete issue raised by Tenmei is the supposed "unreliablity" of the source, which could easily be solved by a third editor checking the source. Then again, Tenmei has repeatedly demonstrated he could care less about the opinions of others. He seems to be unable and unwilling to work constuctively with other editors, resorting to long-winded arguments that, frankly, shows his failure as a communicator and nothing else.

The IP editor, on the other hand, has engaged in some trolling and disruption(which has been reverted by me and other editors) but I believe that Tenmei's treatment incensed the IP editor and increased his determination to disrupt wikipedia through dubious practices such as crossing out his comments and deleting them. In any case, this is not a case for ArbComTeeninvestor (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Second Response to Tenmei

Provide us with your view! So far you have provided absolutely NOTHING concrete which we can analyze, besides hollow rhetoric. I supposedly deny "WP: BURDEN" and other policy, but other than unsupported ah hominem attacks, I have so far had nothing concrete from you. You have yet to back up your claims I deny WP: BURDEN, WP:RSUE, and others. If I deny WP:BURDEN, why are we discussing the use of editors to check the reliabilty of the source? As usual, your refusal to listen to others, along with your tentenious repetitions, have gotten us nowhere. Other editors, I believe, also share this sentiment.

This is an example of his working altitude:

"The following source may or may not be credible. I can't be bothered to try to figure it out, based on previous experience with dubious material offered by an anonymous "contributor" to this specific article. However, I do have the ability and willingness to determine that the dubious citations attributed to this Chinese language "history" are inconsistent with WP:V.

Li Bo, Zheng Yin, "5000 years of Chinese history", Inner Mongolian People's publishing corp , ISBN 7-204-04420-7, 2001. Accordingly, I have deleted all of it. This kind of anonymous "participation" is incompatible with Misplaced Pages's standards. --Tenmei (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)"

No consensus, no consultation, no discussion. That is his modus operantus.

Tenmei's history of disruption

Also, it seems this is not the first time Tenmei has demonstrated such behavior. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive471#User:Tenmei.27s_abusing_AfD_and_personal_attacks Compared to that incident, Tenmei demonstrated better behaviour, but I think this can show that Tenmei is indeed engaging in uncivil behaviour, as well as a GREAT Diffuculty communicating his ideas and working with other editors. It is not just me who thinks Tenmei has difficulty communicating and working with other editors, check the opinion of this editor on an uninvolved matter: "I think you are overreacting, because the fundamental problem with Tenmei is his inability to make himself understood, not civility issues. It is not my intention to mock you. The other blocks is less indicative than what I assumed when looking at your log, and as such is not really relevant to this discussion. Taemyr (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC) "

I find this discussion, in any case, redundant; adequate links have been given for any body who wants to verify the source, and it is not difficult to find a chinese-language editor who will accept the task of doing so(especially when the summary is already pasted onto the page). You gentlemen know the difficulty and effort exerted in making decisions in an arbitration case better than me; I don't think the arbitration comittee, as well as myself, deserves to be dragged into this by the obstinacy of one editor. I don't think ArbCom should reward his disruptive and vextatious behaviour by accepting his arbitration request.

Tenmei's attempt to construe this as a "nationalistic dispute" is laughable, especially considering the above section has clearly shown he edits with a heavy nationalistic bias, and agenda. This is a "dispute"(if it can be called that ) in which one editor vextatiously harassed others and violated WP:CONSENSUS. ArbCom should not reward this behaviour. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

We need to refocus the debate

Indeed it seems that Tenmei's behaviour is a bigger issue than the actual "dispute" at the article, which is as of now nonexistent. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive456#Personal_abuse_and_disruptive_behaviour_by_Tenmei http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive471#User:Tenmei.27s_abusing_AfD_and_personal_attacks Several incident files have been focussed on Tenmei, but to no avail. Although earlier I suggested this case was not useful, I urge arbitrators to accept their case and refocus their attention on User:Tenmei's history of disruption, rather than the "dispute" at Inner Asia during the Tang dynasty, which appeared to have reached a stable form.Teeninvestor (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Til Eulenspiegel

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

Statement by PericlesofAthens

What more needs to be said from my end? I feel that I have criticized User:Tenmei's actions enough at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. If, as the arbitrator's opinion suggests, you are looking for an experienced editor who can clear up verifiability issues with the Li Bo and Zheng Yin source used by User:Teeninvestor, then perhaps I can be of some help. Frankly I've been busy with other things; otherwise, I would have taken the time to do a little research, as I still have access to a university library. However, I'm not going there today, so I don't see how I'll be of much immediate use. Bowing out.--Pericles of Athens 15:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


Statement by Arilang1234

  1. I am here to support user Teeninvestor, because Teeninvestor is a keen content contributor, only need some editors to verify the source.
  2. User Tenmei seems to have a confused sense of logic and historical time line, because no nation in the world is going to make any serious claim of oil and gas field based on 2000 years old historical facts.
  3. I suggest user Tenmei to start his/or her own wikipedia, and make up own wiki rules. Arilang 13:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Yaan

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

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

Statement by uninvolved Caspian blue

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Gun Powder Ma

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

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

View by uninvolved Ncmvocalist

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by uninvolved Penwhale

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

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.
  • If necessary, I could be of assistance in reading over the sources, though if I were to do that I would, of course, have to recuse. - Penwhale | 03:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (8/3/0/5)

  • Comment. Please provide the archive link for the relevant request at the edit warring noticeboard. Have any of the content noticeboards, such as WP:RSN or WP:NORN, been tried? Have any other reports been filed on the administrative noticeboards, besides the edit warring report? Has anyone sought a third opinion or filed a request for comment? --Vassyana (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    Decline, for now. From all appearances, there are still multiple avenues left untried and available for the resolution of both the conduct and content portions of this dispute. Some of the issues may be a bit complicated and/or require a bit of expert assistance, but in the scheme of things that can be said about quite a large portion of the topics we cover. I'd encourage the participants to make use of the content and conduct noticeboards as necessary and to seek out the input of one or more uninvolved Chinese-speaking editors. --Vassyana (talk) 05:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Some input from a Chinese-speaking administrator or experienced editor on the sourcing/verifiability and related issues might be helpful here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm going to second that request from an uninvolved Chinese-literate editor; it does appear that any case would revolve around the sources, and a good interpretation of them appears indispensable. — Coren  00:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
    Accept; Alleged misuse of sources is at the center of this case, and because of the added complication of the language of those sources it appears that ArbCom, with some help, is in the best position to help solve it. — Coren  13:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I have asked at the Arbitration Clerks' Noticeboard for one of the clerks to try to find a suitable wikiproject at which to post a request for assistance from an experienced editor/admin with respect to the interpretation/verifiability & sourcing issues. Risker (talk) 04:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: for what it's worth, User:Nlu might make a good person to take care of that, though I'm not sure whether or not he's involved. He'd be my go-to guy in this case though. As for the case, I'll say decline for now since it's basically a content dispute, though i coud be persuaded. Wizardman 18:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - this will take some time to review and understand (for me at least). Noting here that I'm aware of the request, but unable to fully review for a few days. Hopefully more statements will have been made by then by uninvolved users who may want to opine and explain what they see happening here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Default to Accept. There are issues here, and a more appropriate way forward hasnt presented itself. John Vandenberg 01:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you Caspian blue. Based on what you have indicated, I think Wikisource can be of assistance here as a scratch pad to record the sources and translations. Wikisource has an Author page for Li Po on English Wikisource and Chinese Wikisource. I have set up three transcription projects on Wikisource at s:Author:Li Bai#Transcription projects, and I have created a bibliography page for s:Author:Bo Yang. There are no limitations on the amount of detail that can be recorded on Wikisource Author pages.
    It would be helpful if the original Chinese sources are archived onto Chinese Wikisource if they are public domain, as all Li Bai works are, and any English translations identified. If the English translations are public domain, they should also be archived onto English Wikisource, or if no public domain translation is available, a collaborative translation can be created on English Wikisource.
    John Vandenberg 00:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I see that we are stuck here. Has any Chinese-speaking editor who would help been found? Do the parties agree with that step? I read user:PericlesofAthens said they would take care of that but—since they are a named party of the dispute—do the parties agree with them helping in that direction? -- FayssalF - 20:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Abstain for now, per my colleagues. There is clearly a problem but there are better avenues for resolution, which appear unexplored.  Roger Davies 06:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Accept. Although the situation is more premature than most disputes ArbCom accepts, I think that an arbitration case has a better chance to have an amenable resolution in this particular situation than would happen without ArbCom's involvement. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Accept. Kirill  05:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Accept. per FloNight and Fayssal above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Accept by Rlevse per this diff.
  • Decline. The parties don't present this as a behavioral problem, and I'm don't think we have a clear idea about what we hope to accomplish with arbitration. I recommend a community ban on all incarnations of the sock; based on the statements, I don't even think it would be controversial. The rest seems to be a linguistic question that we're ill-equipped to answer. I suggest that parties agree to the opinions of uninvolved editors at noticeboards. If they do not, come back for a topic ban, which we can pass by motion. Cool Hand Luke 15:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I find myself with conflicting opinions on this request. The dispute certainly rises to a level of entrenchedness and seriousness which would justify accepting a case. However it is also a highly specialised dispute affecting a very small section of the project, and I am not yet certain that all other attempts at dispute resolution have failed (it does not seem to me that the failure of one party to accept mediation inescapably amounts to a failure of mediation). I disagree with Caspian Blue that the intervention of trolling sockpuppets makes other kinds of resolution impossible. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarifications and other requests

Shortcuts

Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests

Arbitration Committee proceedings Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Arbitrator motions
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024


Category: