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 23:16, 11 June 2009 editRoger Davies (talk | contribs)Administrators34,587 edits →Mentor to explain "alchemy": Enough← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:59, 13 June 2009 edit undoFloNight (talk | contribs)Administrators20,015 edits courtesy blank page 
Line 1: Line 1:

==Arbitrators active on this case== ==Arbitrators active on this case==
{{#ifeq:|yes| {{#ifeq:|yes|
Line 181: Line 180:
:<small>''To update this listing, and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.''</small> :<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)}}
== ]'s WP:TLDR winning again over the valid concerns on his incivility and harassment ==

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)

: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)
::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)

{{shortcut|WP:HA#NOT}}
:::In the text above, catchphrase terms are used for the purpose of contriving harm. I resist using words which have been robbed of any meaning by overuse. ] has misused these terms as part of an extended campaign. ] has not been harassed. Some attention needs to be devoted to what harassment is not. --] (]) 18:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

==Rejecting "Locus of dispute" as written==
This specific "proposed finding of fact" should be rejected as written.

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.

<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. --] (]) 18:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

===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 ===
Five remedies are proposed, but I don't understand how to convert these terse aphorisms into something meaningful and timely.
:*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:
::"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>"
:*2.
:*3.
:*4.
:*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.

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.

] 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)

====Jurisdiction====
There are only six votes for retaining jurisdition; and no interests are served by abandoning a number of problems which have been exacerbated by ArbCom's intervention. --] (]) 16:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
:Wikiquote: 1993 Nobel Prize in Literature
: --
:The Nobel Prize website makes it easy for anyone to listen to the Nobel laureate delivering this speech in English. I re-visited this lecture many times across a span of years. I especially struggled with this one sentence.

I do not know how this could have been handled better. I do know that, having opened the case, it's in your hands. --] (]) 16:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

:The newly added elements of the proposed decision suggest circumstances in which retained jurisdiction might be helpful:
::* Allegations pertaining to each other
::* Parties instructed and urged
::* Parties are instructed and warned
::* Editors counseled to step away temporarily,
:I would expect these to be seen as compelling reasons for retaining jursidiction. --] (]) 19:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

== Another list and "disruptive" canvassing by ] ==

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 ] ==

*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, I'm working on figuring out how to set up an appropriate e-mail address.

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)

=== ] ===
Misplaced Pages is not a place to educate somebody's lack of his/her common sense. According to your logic, Tenmei, anyone who knows your disruptive behavior very well can call you "various names". Just imagine what others would call you given your "relentless harassment", and "habitual verbal abuses". As you already admitted yourself that my evidence has something to do with your proposed sanctions and two admins in good standing have confirmed my view and your behaviors. Think and look upon yourself. --] 17:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

{{shortcut|WP:HA#NOT}}
:::In the text above, catchphrase terms are used for the purpose of contriving harm. I resist using words which have been robbed of any meaning by overuse. ] has misused these terms as part of an extended campaign. ] has not been harassed. Some attention needs to be devoted to what harassment is not. --] (]) 18:50, 3 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. <u>Unfounded accusations of harassment</u> is 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)

====] for the last time====
How many times have I told you, stop. It is extremely frustrating that arbcom and clerk do not care to intervene him to stop his verbal abuse during the whole time of ArBcom. because he may feel some of his verbal attacks have to be removed, then that's good for his recognition. I just wish this kind of abuses by the individual be stopped by ArbCom intervention; lurking and wikistalking my edits, harassing me, and advocating your agenda to editors whom I encountered.

If I were the only one who has perceived your verbal abuses and harassment, then why everyone who've given "evidences" on your disruption, have suggested that you should be further restricted or banned from the community for one year or get sanctioned with assigned mentorship? I got to know today that you even created sandboxes just solely to attack me and Nick-D at Dutch Wiki (Teeninvestor informed NYB of it)

Why are you to be the sole claimer for your agenda on English and various accuations? Because you've been behaving disruptive during the ArbCom and the Tang article as well as various articles in the past. I don't care about your editing, but I just do not want you to "get me" and spread your agenda about me outside areas that you are not related to. You're indeed "out of line". Over the past 8 months, I've been harassed by you. You are the one to invite me to write down your abuses, and attacks because of your attacking me and seeking vengeances to George. Why my name has to be in your canvassed message because you think the remedies on you are due to my evidence? You've been behaving disruptive, so you're going to be sanctioned. I have no intention to work with you ever, so please desist your spooky behavior.--] 04:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

:Wikiquote: 1993 Nobel Prize in Literature
: --
:The Nobel Prize website makes it easy for anyone to listen to the Nobel laureate delivering this speech in English. I re-visited this lecture many times across a span of years. I especially struggled with this one sentence. --] (]) 15:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

{{shortcut|WP:HA#NOT}}
:::In the text above, catchphrase terms are used for the purpose of contriving harm. I resist using words which have been robbed of any meaning by overuse. ] has misused these terms as part of an extended campaign. ] has not been harassed. Some attention needs to be devoted to what harassment is not. --] (]) 18:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

==Not a minor ==
I hesitate to post anything at all on this page because I don't want to give ] any further opportunities to complain. However, there are many things I don't understand about how our ArbCom case unfolded. Even at the risk of arousing ] anew, I feel a need to mention my concerns in a timely manner.

As the case has not yet closed, I guess this is the place where I should begin.

I understand that my composition skills are identified as "findings of fact" -- . I also notice that ArbCom finds that perceived problems with my writing needs to be remedied --
and

If my writing inhibited ArbCom's ability to understand, why was there zero response to any questions I posed to clerks? I specifically identified "complying with ArbCom expectations" as an urgent concern. I was explicit in asking for guidance, e.g.,
* "If there are errors of procedure which I'm wrong to overlook, please identify how I can ameliorate these flaws in my ArbCom participation" -- .
* "If there is arguable merit in Teeninvestor's comments and complaints, I fail to see it at this point; but at least I can take the prudent and timely step of seeking an opinion from someone who understands the process better than I do" -- .
The proposed decision is plain in explaining that ArbCom's view of the the locus and scope of this case was unrelated to what I thought the locus and scope were. I asked for clarification at a time when I could do something to affect the outcome -- , but there was no response. I don't see this as a minor . Why was there no response to questions in a timely manner?

The ArbCom finding of fact and remedies remain difficult for me to parse easily. --] (]) 19:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

==Mentorship==

I believe FloNight's mentorship suggestion for Tenmei on workshop is constructive.] (]) 11:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

:Although I think that Tenmei's disruptive behaviours are not sanctioned enough, I see the mentorship proposal of FloNight as a very constructive step forward. I urge all arbitrators to support said proposal.] (]) 17:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
==<u>Not</u> disrupting, harassing, attacking, abusing ==
On this talk page, ] posted the words "toxic" and "long-term" and "warrior" on this page .

I did <u>not</u> aggravate with provocative and baiting diffs. Nevertheless, ]'s inventive malice opened a new venue at ], presenting a chain of complaint including "... Tenmei has called me "toxic long-tern edit warrior ..." Before the experience of this ArbCom case, I would have thought there was no need to reject facile accusations :
:* No to the phrase "... Tenmei continuing disruptive behaviors ..."
:* No to the phrase "... ArbCom clerks and Arbitrators just let Tenmei harass me."
:* No to the phrase "... attacked me with vicious verbal abuses."
:* No to the phrase "... this kind of abuses has been condoned ..."
It takes much longer to fashion a response than was invested in the original diff.

] replied with measured language .

] posted a mild comment on my talk page .

]'s complaints require the reader to presume merit in allegations of victimization and -- neither of which is justified by the immediate edit history.

:<u>Edit history</u>
:>''' <u>04:39</u>, 2 June (''→Tenmei for the last time'') ... new thread initiative by ]'''

{{col-begin}}
{{col-2}}
:A 15:13, 2 June (''→Tenmei for the last time'')<br>
:B 16:35, 2 June (''→Stop'')<br>
:C 16:45, 2 June 2009 (''→Remedies: jurisdiction'')<br>
{{col-2}}
A Responsive () is a <u>non</u>-dramatic Wikiquote<Br>
B Responsive () is <u>non</u>-dramatic underlining<br>
C Non-dramatic issue , Jurisdiction is <u>non</u>-aggravating
{{col-end}}

:>''' <u>17:01</u>, 2 June (''Tenmei, regardless of the last warning, you continue doing so'') ... new thread initative by ]'''

:> '''<u>17:11</u>, 2 June (''→Tenmei: ce'') ... new thread initiative at ] by ]<Br>'''

{{col-begin}}
{{col-2}}
:D 19:16, 2 June (''why did the clerks answer no questions?'')
{{col-2}}
D. Non-dramatic issue , clarification is <u>non</u>-aggravating
{{col-end}}

I took hours to create this response -- a diff which arguably tries to be succinct and clear. The task embitters, because ]'s mild rebuke casts me in an undeserved role. Like ] , I'm taken aback: "Wow, all I can say is why and how did this train derail?"

I have a partial answer to "why" and "how," but for today, I can only say that it wasn't because of me. I believe that ]'s reaction was informed by the idiomatic expression ]; but that phrase is misleading in this specific instance.

In this ArbCom case, my restraint should have earned commendation. It did not. Arguably, ]'s comment shows that I have been similarly ill-served by restraint on this page. Caspian blue's repeated allegations are unjustified, but when I fail to response '']'', ] demonstrates that the empty claims metamorphose into presumed facts.

This is not a good for me. This is not good for Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 18:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

===Allegations pertaining to each other===
] is not a party. I have remained remarkably calm in the face of extended provocation from this non-party. The effects of compliance remain unclear, primarily because ]'s the unchecked claims of victimization are unlikely to diminish. Actions and understanding are not married in this. --] (]) 19:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
: <u>I am a party</u>; and my participation is demonstrably informed by a seemly concern for the

:A bitter lesson learned in this ArbCom case is this: I must acknowledge any accusation or mis-applied label, else it will be presented -- and likely accepted -- as so-called "evidence" of misconduct in some future venue unrelated to this one. I reject the following litany of loaded-words and wiki-catchwords:
:* At -above -- ]: incivility, harassment, disruption, incivility, harrassed, wikistalked, attacked, horrendous behaviors; and ]: disruptive behaviours.
:* At -above -- ]: rant, "enemy list"; and ]: disruptive
:* At -above -- ]: canvassing, obsession, obsession, agenda, canvassed, wikistalked, harassed, disruption, incivility, antagonaize, gloated, mocked, insulting, naming calling, harassment, inappropriate behaviors, enemy, disruptive, canvassing, disruption, naming calling, personal attack, disruptive behavior, harassment, "habitual verbal abuses"; and ]: disruptive behaviours
:* At -above -- ]: name callings, ad hominem attacks, canvassing, Crying wolf, long-term toxic warrior, harassing, naming calling, long-term and disruptive harassment, verbal abuse, verbal attacks, abuses, lurking, wikistalking, harassing, agenda, verbal abuses, harassment, attack, accuations, disruptive, harassed, abuses, attacks, attacking, vengeances, canvassed, disruptive, spooky behavior
:Who's kidding who? This cumulative list of repeated terms is drawn from just this one talk page, and it's harmful consequences are measurable.

:These words prove nothing; and the ArbCom decision neither endorses nor validates any single one of the above. Similar lists drawn from the evidence and workshop pages become telling measure of ArbCom's inattention. The fact that I perceive any need to post this explicit caveat becomes a stark indictment of ArbCom's failure in this case.
:It makes no sense to me that <u>my congruent words + actions</u> aren't construed to speak louder than strung-together wiki-catchwords? --] (]) 18:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

=== Parties instructed and urged ===
] is not a party. I have remained remarkably calm in the face of extended provocation. Despite this, I am the sole participant to be "instructed and urged." Compliance is not difficult, but actions and understanding are not married in this. --] (]) 19:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
: <u>I am a party</u>; and my participation is demonstrably informed by a seemly concern for the

:It makes no sense to me that <u>my congruent words + actions</u> aren't construed to speak louder than strung-together wiki-catchwords? --] (]) 18:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

=== Parties are instructed and warned ===
] is not a party. I have remained remarkably calm in the face of extended provocation. Despite this, I am the sole participant to be "instructed and warned." Compliance is not difficult, but actions and understanding are not married in this. --] (]) 19:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
: <u>I am a party</u>; and my participation is demonstrably informed by a seemly concern for the

:It makes no sense to me that <u>my congruent words + actions</u> aren't construed to speak louder than strung-together wiki-catchwords? --] (]) 18:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

=== Editors counseled to step away temporarily ===
] is not a party. I have remained remarkably calm in the face of extended provocation. Despite this, I am the sole participant to be "counseled." Compliance is not difficult, but actions and understanding are not married in this. --] (]) 19:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

: <u>I am a party</u>; and my participation is demonstrably informed by a seemly concern for the

:I am the only participant who presents explicit evidence of actually taking steps to disengage from this ArbCom case, as shown at at above.

:It makes no sense to me that <u>my congruent words + actions</u> aren't construed to speak louder than loaded words strung-together with wiki-catchwords. --] (]) 18:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

==Indictment of ArbCom==
Before this case was opened, I explicitly stated that my complaint encompassed <u>three</u> specific issues and <u>one</u> broader topic. ArbCom neither addressed nor acknowledged any of these issues. Instead, this case was expanded without specifically informing the parties.

ArbCom arbitrarily permitted a non-party to leverage center stage, which became most egregious during the period in which the parties were encouraged to disengage.

===Process===
This way this case developed becomes an of ArbCom general failure to serve the community.

ArbCom left the participants to their own devices, offering nothing beyond the venue's bare template.

ArbCom might have more actively assisted the participants in finding a better way forward; but instead, there was nothing which fulfilled the implied promise of comments which were made before the case was opened -- .

ArbCom did not help the parties to agree on a locus of dispute and the scope of the case, nor did ArbCom assist the participants in working together to identify and assess elements of agreement which might have been found to exist even in a context of disagreement, i.e.,
:"If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it."
:::-- Abraham Lincoln, .

Paraphrasing ], this case illustrates some of ArbCom's flaws without providing a balancing demonstration of ArbCom's current and prospective utility for individual participants and for the community as a whole, e.g.,
*1. ArbCom allowed no opportunity for improving transparency in the arbitration process. For example, the proposed decision is not articulated in sufficient detail for anyone to learn from it.
: * What was done wrong, what was done right and what alternatives might be anticipated in future?
: * What was the reasoning and justification which informed ArbCom's decision-making?
: * What was it that the participants need to understand about why and how ArbCom decided as it did?
: * What was it that the community needs to understand about why and how ArbCom ruled as it did?
*2. ArbCom admits no occasion for acknowledging or addressing issues which poison the core values of collaborative editing.

It is impossible for anyone to identify specific relationships amongst the various principles and the findings of fact, all of which were presumably adduced from the initial statements of the parties, from the evidence presented and from the workshop pages.

The remedies do not explain how they were derived from principles and the findings of fact.

===Decision===
The decision in this case becomes a separate indictment because many of its consequences are unique to this case, to its parties, and to its participants.

The decision does not articulate how it is expected to function in terms of maintaining and enhancing the credibility of our encyclopedia.

===Critical analysis===
In this case and in all cases, an implicit function of the ArbCom process is enhancing the community's sense of respect and trust in its work. --] (]) 04:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

:<b> comment </b>. Considering your behaviour, ArbCom's been more than generous.] (]) 00:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

::<u>Response to ]</u>. The focus on generosity is welcome. It represents an attitude which needs to be encouraged and nurtured in this wiki-venue and in other wiki-settings as well. However, ]'s comment misconstrues the purpose of this small case. Taking the longer view, Misplaced Pages is evolving; and the more important analytical issues in any ArbCom outcome are to be found in its functional utility for the community as a whole, not just for a limited number of parties, participants and active onlookers. --] (]) 20:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

==Measuring the distance between May 16th and early June==
] concludes "there are no specific findings of problematic user conduct for the parties other than Tenmei." The short sentence leaves me wrongly battered as ] joins ] in casting me in an undeserved role.

No.

] marginalizes the undeniable fact that, in the face of extraordinary provocation, I complied with one very simple instruction on the evidence page: "Stay focused on the issues raised." For this, is it unseemly for ArbCom to conclude that somehow I deserve restrictions as some kind of reprimand? No.

]'s edit history establishes a context of which I was largely unaware until ]'s proposal motivated me to investigate with more diligence. It is fair to characterize this history as a series of battles interspersed with occasional work on articles. The thrust of his/her contributions are encapsulated in the following:
* ] explains : "... the category of the anti-Japanese sentiments in Korean is existing prior and was created by Japanese. The category , anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea by myself is to intend to equofiy the viewpoint in the two sides. FYI, <u>my sentiment toward Japanse is originated by the Japanses in English and Korean Wiki</u>." -- 14:25, 29 '''September 2007'''

* ] explains : "Regardless of whether you are right or wrong, you are making yourself look very foolish and immature with your edit summaries—especially your accusations of bad faith and uncivilty, since your own comments appear rather belligerent and uncivil. Your invocation of Misplaced Pages policies also appears rather disingenuous, so I suggest that you desist with the inflammatory comments and not engage in inflammatory exchanges—to English speakers, they look very childish. Instead, just stick to facts and ignore provocations. Please remember also that <u>Misplaced Pages is not a forum for carrying out battles over national pride</u>." -- 03:00, '''7 January 2008'''

See also:
*'''March 2008''' , WP:AN/IncidentArchive#Appletrees is abusing the system
*'''March 2008''' , WP:AN/IncidentArchive380#Long time abusing Misplaced Pages by Japanese editors from 2channel meat/sock puppets
*'''June 2008''' , ]
*'''July 2008''' , WP:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-25 Comfort women
*'''August 2008''' WP:AN/IncidentArchive460#User Sennen goroshi's stalking and disruption

*'''January 2009''' , Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive510#Sennen goroshi Caspian blue
::<u>Related block</u>: -- 17:07, 27 '''October 2007'''

I'm just one amongst many who have been been singled out by ] across a span of years; but in this venue, my restraint earns rebuke as a novel and stunningly perverse reward. No.
===Anti-Japanese bias===
An odd ] affects this proposed decision; but it has nothing to do with 7th-8th century central Asia nor with the locus of dispute or scope of this case as I understood it before now.

] and others have determined that I am Japanese, despite the fact that I have avoided self-labeling in terms of nationality, gender, marital status, etc. I gather that ] has endured a number of caustic disputes with anonymous contributors and sockpuppets; and many of these were seen to have originated in Japan. ] is Korean; and aggrieved complaints about perceived anti-Korean bias are commonplace, not only involving those like me with perceived or actual Japanese backgrounds.

As '']'' "evidence" of my , ] alleges that in 2008 "Tenmei ... attacked my ethnicity and taunted my ancestors ...." Inexplicably, ]'s 2008 complaint at did <u>not</u> encompass this specific claim ... which demonstrates that it simply didn't happen. In today's context, ]'s uncritical acceptance of every accusation doesn't change this fundamental reality ... although it aparently makes unjustified innuendo seem more palatable.

This one example suggests complicated ]s affecting a broad of wiki-edits.

===Harassment===
] is not a victim of harassment; rather, it's the other way around. ] accepts this alleged victimization uncritically, but that acceptance neither verifies nor clarifies. This cacophony in June overwhelms

* ] is wrongly denigrated with claim -- 07:24, 27 '''March 2008'''
:* BLOCK: 06:53, 27 March 2008 ] blocked ] (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (''disruption on ], harassment of ]'')
* ] is wrongly denigrated with claim -- 15:06, '''31 March 2009'''
:* BLOCK: 01:13, 1 April 2009 ] blocked ] (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ ('']'' or '']'': harrassment of ]'')
* ] is wrongly denigrated with claim -- 01:16, 26 April 2009

These consequences of any one of these allegations are too grave to be handled casually.
===Bottom line ===
No. This travesty becomes ArbCom's nadir -- <u>wrong in ways that truly matter</u>. I don't know how to encourage ArbCom to think again. The parties' investment in this case was shown to have been worthwhile on May 16 :
:Also, can I ask you a policy question relating to this case. User:Tenmei seems to claim that citing your sources does not make you comply with WP:V, as shown here. . I couldn't make out any of his other claims because of WP:TLDR. Being confused, I'd like to ask: Does citing your sources make you comply with WP:V? I ask this question just to get a clear and official judgement from an experienced arbitrator, as this is more or less the entire dispute.
] acknowledges the core of issues which brought the parties to ArbCom; and I emphasized this small step forward at at the bottom of the workshop page. Despite this, ArbCom makes no comment about what the parties agree the case is about. ArbCom squanders this crucial success and ignores the work which made it possible.

<u>I am a party</u>; and my participation is demonstrably informed by a seemly concern for the I am not unmoved by a litany of loaded-words and wiki-catchwords, but I also know that I must reevaluate the persuasive impact of one hand clapping. This becomes decision which is not understood by the parties or nor is it readily understandable for others who later examine the archived record. '']''?

No.

A bitter lesson learned in this ArbCom case is trust betrayed. I am radicalized, embittered and affronted in ways which I would not have thought possible. One thing needs to be made very clear: I'm <u>not</u> contrite, and there is no reason for me to be. The distance between May 16th and today is measured in terms I don't understand yet. <s>Tenmei|Tenmei 16:21, 8 June 2009</s> At best, we can hope that ArbCom misconstrued this case in familiar ways, as another example of or perhaps a proxy skirmish in the ] edit wars. --] (]) 20:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
:<b> Comment</b>: Will ArbCom clerks consider moving this lengthy statement above for WP:TLDR.] (]) 17:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

::<u>Response to ]</u>. The terse comment provides a timely glimpse into an array of unintended consequences. I don't know what to make of the adjective "lengthy."

::The oblique simplicity of ]'s sentence is achieved by parsing the wrong catalog of selectively-noticed factors. The reasoning which informs this sentence heedlessly ignores, as I do not, a continuing Again and anew, this begs the question, '']''?

::] construes ] as a blunt weapon, as a tool for crushing anything and everything I write into a demonstrative proof that

::This sentence, arising arguably from adduced "principles" and "findings of fact" in our case, is <u>wrong in ways that truly matter</u>. --] (]) 20:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Tenmei, we are a collaborative project. When you fail to discuss matters in a manner that are accessible to other editors you are being disruptive. ] (]) 20:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

::::<u>Response to ]</u>. As I summarize above, ] is not a victim of harassment; rather, it's the other way around. ] accepts this alleged victimization uncritically, but that acceptance neither verifies nor clarifies. This cacophony in June overwhelms In different words, ]'s extravagant complaints and my misplaced restraint make up the story of what happened between May 16th and June. At the same time, this period of decision-making also implicates the broader issues which informed my initial purpose in asking for ArbCom's help. Having ] what redundant repetition can achieve, I introduce this overlooked concern yet again. What about this is difficult to understand? I would have thought it's pretty straight-forwrard.

::::What do you mean? These postings are neither inaccessible nor too long -- rather, my words presented a summarized overview which ] too casually dismissed as if with a knee-jerk reflex, not even attempting to construe a constructive intention or value or function.

::::The more significant element of ]'s sentence is its typical rejection, full-stop, end-of-discussion, blank wall which allows no option for moving forward backward or in any other direction. In this one sentence, it is ]'s comment which is more accurately described as "inaccessible" because it allows no possibility for communicating. In the alternative, if there were any part of what I wrote which ] or you or anyone else didn't understand, a mere question would have opened the door to the give-and-take which is what you presumably mean by "accessibility." Nothing in my writing on this page or elsewhere creates such metaphorical closed doors. I do very well understand what is essential in the term "inaccessible."

::::], I did wonder about the ] in the phrase I quoted from the ''New York Times'' article about ArbCom; but since this reference is explained in a Misplaced Pages article, I set that worry aside. Is this small point what you meant by the term "inaccessible"? --] (]) 21:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::I was speaking on your conduct in general. Look at ], it is currently 189 kilobytes long. Most of that is your dispute over sourcing. That dispute could have been resolved with a simple question at ]; is quotations required when using foreign language sources. The answer to which would have been; "No. Verifiable does not mean instantly verifiable." With a paragraph or two of digression into the role and legality of direct quotations. ] (]) 23:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::Tenmei, if even Taemyr, an editor that is relatively friendly towards you, is criticizing your behaviours, you truly need to reform yourself.] (]) 23:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

::::<u>2nd response to ]</u>. -- I take your point, but your observation misconceives how the dispute was understood by the parties at the outset.
::::*A. Initially, narrow issues about how to handle this dispute were not expressed so neatly in .
:::::More relevant from my point of view, ] argued that any questions at all were disruptive because ] had already verified the book; but that each time claim was asserted, it turned out to be false:
:::::*A-1. : ] claims that text was verified -- ''simple past tense''
:::::*A-2. : not verified
:::::*A-3. : not verified
:::::*A-4. : not verified
:::::These diffs show that it was <u>not disruptive to seek further clarification</u>, not was it clear that ArbCom was a poor venue for such matters. The question about whether I made this bigger than it needed to be is better evaluated in terms of ] false claims, which plainly caused a dilemma neither I nor others knew how to handle.

::::*B. When the ArbCom case was joined, I continued to research the issues.
:::::In fact, it is <u>my</u> research which underlies the "verification in principle" reasoning which ] asserts and you now adopt.
:::::* B-1. 13 April -- Tenmei posts links to ] archives
:::::*B-2. 20 April -- Teeninvestor 1st asserts "verifiability in principle"
:::::I did not know then, nor do I know now, how best to apply this concept. However, I do know that if my research is understood to prove that I was mistaken on March 16 or March 30 or any other significant date, that still does nothing to address the strategy of derision and confrontation which the proposed decision in this case endorses.

::::In crude terms, ArbCom endorses ] initial confrontational approach -- daring any questioner to persist. As a keee-jerk reaction, ArbCom decision in this case effectively advises ] and others to ascribe vandalism and disruptive editing as motivating any and all opponents. This becomes a potent game-changer, because the questioner has to prove a negative before arriving at a point to ask any questions.

::::In mid-March, ]'s alleged that any questioning of was motivated by pro-Mongolian bias and POV tag-teaming. In the specific history of this ArbCom case, the "verifiable in principle" argument is a '']'' logical fallacy.

::::In light of the proposed findings of fact and proposed remedies, an additional question becomes relevant. How could I have adequately and convincingly rebutted the logical fallacy of your short comment? My view is that this is as short as I could make it. If you or anyone else considers this response too long, the problem is not mine, but yours. The problem is yours, Taemyr, for having contrived a ] I couldn't unravel with less words. This becomes my problem when I feel compelled to try to answer, but wouldn't it have been worse if I remained quiet? --] (]) 02:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::Taking your points as they come;
:::::A) As far as I can see Teeninvestor, and most other editors, seems to be of the impression that your reasons for rejecting 5000 years of Chinese history is that it is written in chinese and no quotations are provided. At no point have we seen any other reason from you for rejecting this source. Teeninvestor's claim have been that no such quotations are needed, and that the lack of such quotations does not invalidate the source. At one point Teeninvestor believed that PericlesofAthens had done an independent verification of this source, he was mistaken in this. While independent verification would be nice it is not required according to current policy, as far as I can see, once Pericles clarified the extent of his research Teeninvestor did not continue to claim that such verification had taken place. Bearing this in mind we should assume that when Teeninvestor made this claim it was due to a mistake, rather than any deliberate misdirection.
:::::B) My view on "verification in principle" stems from having WP:RSN on my watchlist. "Teeninvestors strategy of derision and confrontion", have been rejecting the idea that quotations are necessary, and insisting on wanting concrete reasons for why content should be removed.
:::::Other than the completely nonsensical merge proposal with salting the earth I can not find any place where Teeninvestor makes accusations of vandalism.
:::::About Teeninvestors allegations of nationalistic bias, diff please.
:::::There are two reasons why the remedies in this case target you more than Teeninvestor.
::::::Primarily, in your evidence section you provide a lot of rhetoric, but no link to any particularly bad behavior on the part of Teeninvestor.
::::::Secondly, you have repeatedly found yourself in similar situations, ie. where other editors have trouble seeing what your point are.
:::::I fail to see how ] applies, since we are not discussion causality.
:::::If you in your final paragraph refers to this diff, , then it is in general to the point, and as such is not particularly much longer than it needs to be.
:::::] (]) 08:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::Thank you for clarifying your meaning. Thank you to for the implied opportunity to try again to make myself better understood. Assuming that your questions are not merely rhetorical, I will address them on your talk page rather than here. As you may have noticed, ArbCom member ] offers a comment ; and I take this to mean that further postings on this page are unhelpful. I would have ignored ]'s diffs if they hadn't been associated with a context you created. I take anything you write as arguably valuable; and therefore, nothing you write will be too casually dismissed.

::::::In terse terms, as for (A) no; and (B) no. Salting the earth is a red herring in the context of this case; but, no -- nothing I do in a Misplaced Pages context is nonsensical. The inroduction of claimed vandalism is set in a broader context; and explaining it requires more diffs and a greater investment of time. Causality is not irrelevant -- rather, it is at the center of what made this difficult. As for what you identify as primary, yes -- exactly; and as for what you identify secondly, no. --] (]) 19:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

:<b> Comment</b>: My one sentence above attracted a response that was several kilobytes long. From this case alone we can see that the remedies are desperately needed(and perhaps not enough). At least Tenmei removed these horrendous attacks from his user page . This talk page is for discussing the proposed decision of ArbCom, not for ranting, Tenmei. You've turned this page into "denounce Teeninvestor, Caspian Blue, and ArbCom" Zone.] (]) 21:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

::<u>Response to ]</u>. This newest comment illustrates the wrong lessons learned from this ArbCom case. This also shows that my use of the term "indictment" above was both prescient and reasonable. ''A priori,'' I have come to recognize that I must begin by acknowledging and denying the following:
::* No to "horrendous attacks" .
::* No to "ranting"
::* No to "'denounce Teeninvestor, Caspian Blue, and ArbCom' Zone."

::We recognize that this talk page is for discussing the proposed decision of ArbCom, which encompasses a timely concern for its likely or anticipated consequences.

::This minor diff suggests that ] has indeed learned a few lessons from participating in this ArbCom case. The foremost amongst these is illustrated by the introduction of confrontational, derisive labeling and loaded-terms as a way to achieve simultaneous objectives:
::*(a) to devalue the substantive nature of what I or anyone else writes; and
::*(b) to establish a dispute which distracts or diverts a defined opponent's train of thought; and
::*(c) to contrive a situation which focuses attention on a

::Across the course of this ArbCom case, ]'s responsive choices reflect tactics and strategies which have been adapted from those of ]. Again and anew, this begs the question, '']''?

::]. ]'s most recent comments prove the unwelcome prescience of my earlier postings on this page. The fact that I do respond, should not be taken to indicate that I am unwilling to disengage from unhelpful disputes which are ultimately unhelpful.

::My writing should be construed as an attempt to move forward into a headwind. --] (]) 22:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

==Lessons learned==
The contributions on this talk page induce me to pose questions which cannot be answered neatly today. The answers will evolve in due course across the span of coming months:
* What lessons will ] have learned from this case?
* What lessons will ] have learned from this case?
* What lessons will ] have learned from this case?
* What lessons will ] have learned from this case?
* What lessons will ] have learned from this case?
* What lessons will ] have learned from this case?
* What lessons will ] have learned from this case?
* What lessons will ] have learned from this case?
* What lessons will ] have learned from this case?
* What lessons will ] have learned from this case?
* What lessons will ] learned from this case?
* What lessons will ] have learned from this case?
* What lessons will ] have learned from this case?
* What lessons will ] have learned from this case?
* What lessons will ] have learned from this case?
* What lessons will ] have learned from this case?
* What lessons will ] have learned from this case?

Although this case was initially conceived with a very limited scope and a narrowly focused locus of dispute, it has developed in ways which implicate a much broader range of consequences than were reasonably anticipated before this case was opened. --] (]) 23:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

:As far as I can see, you haven't learned much.] (]) 23:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
::I'll be signing off today and trying not to have contact with you because of one of ArbCom's proposals, but Tenmei, please don't flood the rest of this talk page with your comments again.] (]) 23:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
:::After the case closes, we can blank the talk pages. Sometimes, we courtesy blank some of the case pages to help users move forward without the harsh words said at the height of the case staying visible. I'm hopeful that after the case closed, then everyone involved with disengage and then have more peaceful editing experience. ]] 14:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

::::''']''' -- Your optimism is misplaced in the context ArbCom wrongly encouraged to develop here, e.g., I notice that ] has created a new section at ]'s talk page entitled "Attack page on me on the Dutch Wiki?" ]'s message explains,
:::::"I just spotted your statement that Tenmei has created a sandbox attacking me on the Dutch wiki at . Could you please provide a link to this?"
::::Responding unequivocally: There is no attack page. There never were any attack pages. I didn't know the term "attack page" until ] and ] conjured up an accusation based on an attempt to organize the massive set of claims, allegations, innuendo and over-reaching which were presented as so-called "evidence" in this case.

::::On a more constructive note, ] should be interested in helping to improve articles I created since things went so terribly wrong at ]. As a constructive step in an appropriate direction, I did create
:::::*''']''',
:::::*''']''' and
:::::*.
::::These aticles are appropriate and reasonable examples of a good faith effort to try to understand how to have mitigated problems as they developed at ]. This work would seem inconsistent with the all-bad, wrong-doer impression that ArbCom has wrongly accepted. Among my first questions for a "mentor" is this: How should I have known that I needed to dignify the complaints with more of a response than I did offer?

::::''']''', these articles are concrete illustrations of trying to move beyond a problem in a worthy manner. I would have thought that the edit histories of these articles become relevant in the broad-spectrum of complaints ArbCom has wrongly credited ? --21:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

== Tenmei doesn't accept ArbCom's findings ==

. Tenmei exclusively rejected ArbCom's findings on his disruptive behaviour, which shows that he will continue this behaviour in the future. This is quite worrisome, and shows that the sanctions on Tenmei are ineffective and harsher ones are needed.] (]) 12:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
:It is necessary for all the people in the dispute to accept the ruling and disengage from each other, such as to stop commenting about each other.

:It is very common for cases to end with the person getting sanctioned disagreeing with sanction or other aspects of the ruling. The important factor will be if Tenmei will work collaboratively with a mentor, and if you all will disengage from each other. ]] 12:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

==== Mentor to explain "locus of dispute" vs. academic integrity?====
At ] and on talk pages of every other ArbCom member, I posted an argument identifying a problem in what was then the third sentence of the "Locus of Dispute." In the context which ] now intitiates, I re-emphasize a crucial or between "A" and "B" below; and I strike out all by two sentences:

:*A. ]'s analysis and paraphrases ]'s measured language :
::<s>"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:</s>
::* 1. <s>"What is the quality of the sources used by both sides in the dispute?</s>

::* 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. <s>"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 ].</s>"

::*B. ]'s rejection is entire and :
:::'''"This guy is out of control, man."'''

]'s paraphrase of ]'s words were posted on talk pages of participants at ]. The "out of control" accusation was repeated at ] and ], showing that this was not merely a transient outburst.

] feigns no misunderstanding; rather, the effort to frame ''collaborative editing'' issues was immediately converted into a contrived hostile encounter.

ArbCom rewards what is bad and denigrates what is good. This pattern is reflected in ArbCom's evidence and workshop pages.

====Mentor to explain "balance between walking away and not addressing specifics"? ====
Was I wrong to comment at ]? An edit summary from one of my -above bears repeating:
* () 18:27, 27 May ] (''→Feuds and quarrels: a provocateur incites for no other purpose than to stir up things'').

The feigned worry in ]'s diff is achieved by parsing the wrong catalog of selectively-noticed factors. The reasoning devalues prudent concerns for a

::

::'''ArbCom should adapt ]'s words as a deliberately redundant "principle" <u>and</u> "finding of fact" <u>and</u> "remedy" in this case and future cases as well.'''

Who's kidding who? Who other than ] theorizes that I didn't try to locate the most constructive "balance" in guessing <u>not</u> to participate at as compared with guessing that it would be more harmful <u>not</u> to comment on ]'s talk page?

====Mentor to explain "pretext"?====
None have cause to disagree with this principled statement:
::"Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other whenever they interact on Misplaced Pages, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them."

IN this new context, I reject anew the ] implied by the terms . In relation to ] and ], I asserted that "]" was a more apt term that "feud" or "quarrel." The following diffs are taken from that workshop thread:

*1. () 17:12, 27 May ] Tenmei's rants and personal attacks above aimed at Nick-D shows the necessity for my proposed one year <b>ban</b> and mentorship of Tenmei.(]) 17:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

:. () 18:27, 27 May ] "This is terse, too mild to be mis-labeled as a , too moderate to be mis-labeled as a ]. The attempt to construe this as further evidence of wrong-doing is overreaching. Your words do illustrate a pattern which is becoming familiar -- . Is this a feud or a quarrel? Or is it only a ?"

*2. () 19:25, 27 May ] "So you are now resorting to <u>wikistalking</u> me? Great."
*3. () 20:27, 28 May ] "Tenmei, your rants and attacks against other editors do nothing to help your casue. In fact, they are growing intolerable. <u>If you continue this attacks, I will have no choice but to contact WP:ANI</u>."

] has learned ] from ArbCom's mishandling of this case. This is illustrated here in one word -- "wikistalking," a florid wiki-term I knew nothing about until ] embraced it within an oft-repeated litany.

In wiki-reality, this '']'' has expanded even when I withheld participation, as happened . ArbCom voting on the proposed decision seems to underscore that ] and ] were above reproach and I was not.

====Mentor to explain "alchemy" ====
ArbCom fails and Misplaced Pages's integrity is diminished when the following sentences are marginalized as they have been:

::* "What is the consensus of scholars in the field; and does the source reflect that consensus?
::* "Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?

] effectively marginalizes these questions. Why? More important, how? A seemly focus on issues is re-packaged as something about "Tenmei's behaviour," and such issues fall by the wayside.

ArbCom decides that <u>I</u> was wrong to ask, <u>I</u> was wrong to insist, <u>I</u> was wrong to persist, and <u>I</u> was wrong for who-knows-what else reasons; but I don't perceive a link between the outcome of this case and the hortatory first principle:
::"The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a high-quality free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among editors."

I am criticized for "excessive and repetitive remarks both on the case pages and in other venues" which was deemed "unproductive for dispute resolution;" but the overwhelming impression lingers that I didn't do enough.

Or maybe this card game was rigged from the outset with the outcome predetermined before the first hand was dealt, as suggested and ? I note with bitter clarity that the euphemism has now matured into in ]'s choice of words. This newly perceived need for coercion arose from where? from what? from who? why? --] (]) 19:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

:Uh, Tenmei, ArbCom doesn't address content disputes. Also, the fact that several other editors, notably Pericles and Arilang have already stated the source should be accepted, as well as editors such as Taemyr criticizing your understanding of WP:RS, should have given you a warning. But you didn't listen. If Tenmei is to be mentored, that mentor better have quite a bit of power. and your accusation that ArbCom's game is "rigged" is quite laughable to say the least. ] (]) 19:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

::] -- The line between "content" and "non-content" becomes an oddly curious topic at this late stage.
::* FACT: ] states , "The locus of dispute is the struggle between a correct interpetation of WP:V to be Verifiability in principle" vs. a straw man.
::* FACT: ] states , "Locus of dispute -- the parties are contributing at cross purposes to each other."
::* FACT: ]'s remedy -- and now ArbCom's remedy -- is coercive sanctions.

::If no issue I brought to this ArbCom case can or could be answered because ArbCom doesn't take content disputes, then why was the case opened? I can't ignore your observation that the measured language of my questoins about burden of proof is more or less the entire dispute."

::In this context, coercive sanctions are necessary to discourage what exactly? Less obvious, but rather more disturbing to me is what you and others are to take from this case as encouragement, confirmation, affirmation?

::There is nothing laughable in this. I can easily disengage from you as ArbCom encourages me to do, but squaring the circle with core principles is a different matter. --] (]) 21:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

:::The reason that ArbCom opened the case was because of your disruptive behaviours, and Caspian Blue's statement. Sanctions are needed to discourage your disruptive behaviours, which damage the encyclopedia. Look at what you've done; in order to win a dispute at an article you knew nothing about, you dragged us all to ArbCom. Should you not be punished for this disruption so that you don't repeat it?] (]) 21:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
::::TeenInvestor, as a party to this case, you are bound by its remedies. You have been advised to ]: please do so now. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 23:16, 11 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)