| Revision as of 17:06, 30 May 2009 editKirill Lokshin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users75,365 edits Archive section with no timestamp← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:03, 30 May 2009 edit undoEnkyo2 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers58,409 edits →Call for you to recuse the AMiB RFAR: revisiting locus of dispute in Tang Dynasty caseNext edit → | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
| <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font>/<font color="red" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> 21:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC) | <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font>/<font color="red" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> 21:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ==Rejecting "Locus of dispute" as written== | |||
| In the "Tang Dynasty" ArbCom case, the "locus of dispute" factfinding should be rejected as written. | |||
| A new, better locus of dispute should be adduced. | |||
| I write to encourage you to re-visit this because the first and last sentences are fundamentally flawed. | |||
| <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 | |||
| <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. | |||
| In support, I highlight a crucial or between "A" and "B" below: | |||
| :*A. ]'s analysis and paraphrases ]'s measured language : | |||
| ::"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: | |||
| ::* 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 : | |||
| :::'''"This guy is out of control, man."''' | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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. | |||
| In voting to support this awkward ], ArbCom's judgment effectively affirms that the contributions of ] and ] were above reproach and I was not. | |||
| This alchemy is difficult to digest. ArbCom rewards what is bad and denigrates what is good. --] (]) 19:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:03, 30 May 2009
|
|
| I am an administrator open to recall. To request this, please start a request for comment; if the consensus there is that my conduct has been unbecoming of an administrator, I will resign. | |
Misplaced Pages Signpost: 25 May 2009
- License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
- News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
- Misplaced Pages in the news: Misplaced Pages: threat or menace?
- WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Alternate Account
Hi, I sent Arbcom an e-mail concerning my alternate account and you responded back to me. Could you please put a message on my talk page or user page confirming that Arbcom is aware of this in case anyone else has concerns?--Sandor Clegane (talk) 23:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Great work at Samaria
Hi Kirill. You did brill at Samaria voting those people off the island. Can you get Jayjg back as soon as possible orcould you make Jaakobou an administrator? That would really stuff them! 81.156.221.178 (talk) 17:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Call for you to recuse the AMiB RFAR
FYI rootology/equality 21:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Rejecting "Locus of dispute" as written
In the "Tang Dynasty" ArbCom case, the "locus of dispute" factfinding should be rejected as written.
A new, better locus of dispute should be adduced.
I write to encourage you to re-visit this because the first and last sentences are fundamentally flawed.
NO to 1st sentence. The case originated when Teeninvestor rejected any and all inquiry relating to WP:V, WP:Burden and WP:RSUE, alleging vandalism and disruptive editing instead. This persistent confrontational strategy is endorsed and encouraged by those voting in support Newyorkbrad's locus of dispute. These votes effectively disregard Tenmei's locus, Teeninvestor's locus and, most importantly, Teeninvestor's restatment at Summarizing "more or less the entire dispute". 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
NO to 3rd sentence. In the specific context of this case, it is procedurally unsound to adopt the expanded scope proposed by Teeninvestor and Caspian blue. 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.
In support, I highlight a crucial fulcrum or pivot between "A" and "B" below:
-
- "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:
- 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
and are all violations of our core content policies, e.g., verifiability, no original research and neutrality."
- "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:
- B. Teeninvestor's rejection is entire here and here:
- "This guy is out of control, man."
In this instance, Tenmei's paraphrase of Coren's moderating analysis was posted on the talk pages of all arguably interested participants at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. The "out of control" accusatory phrasing was repeated in diffs on the talk pages of PericlesofAthens and Arilang1234. This suggests a deliberate strategy rather than a merely transient outburst.
In these pivotal diffs, Teeninvestor 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.
In voting to support this awkward "spin", ArbCom's counter-intuitive judgment effectively affirms that the contributions of Teeninvestor and Caspian blue were above reproach and I was not.
This alchemy is difficult to digest. ArbCom rewards what is bad and denigrates what is good. --Tenmei (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)