This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Teeninvestor (talk | contribs) at 19:55, 2 April 2009 (→Consensus reached at subject article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:55, 2 April 2009 by Teeninvestor (talk | contribs) (→Consensus reached at subject article)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| Misplaced Pages Arbitration |
|---|
 |
| Open proceedings |
| Active sanctions |
| Arbitration Committee |
Audit
|
| Track related changes |
 | Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely. |
Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.
It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.
Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.
Evidence presented by Teeninvestor
What more can I say? I feel I have presented enough evidence to show that the article has reached a stable version and the source is verifiable. Nevertheless, I shall address these complaints once more.
Consensus reached at subject article
The subject article has, contary to Tenmei's claims, reached a consensus version. Initally, I put material from my source on the article after I saw it on the Article Rescue squadron, which was deleted without explanation by Tenmei and others. Afterwards, I solicited a 3O from other editors, who, when working with existing editors, helped form a consensus which unfortunately was not accepted by Tenmei. For evidence of the article's stability, check: diff.
(Added) Tenmei's showing of posts during the dispute, merely shows that he has not understood what I said; that as of now, a consensus has been achieved at Inner Asia during the Tang dynasty, and the edit history is evidence.
Alleged misuse of sources
I feel that the "alleged misuse of sources" is overhyped. I have provided the source, with full bibliographic information, and a link which demonstrates what I said it would be- a Chinese history book. This was confirmed by user:Penwhale. In addition, no errors or anything else was reported from this source, either by Tenmei or any of the editors whose opinions I solicited. Tenmei has admitted he has no knowledge of the subject, and made a very unreasonable demand that all citations must include all the text in original Chinese, as seen here: diff. This is not only unfair but it would cause wikipedia to be unable to use any foreign-language soruces. This source is a reliable, verifiable source that has been provided with standard bibliographical information. Previous doubts about the source were raised, but it was deemed reliable by the community, as shown by this linkdiff
Misplaced Pages's policy is that a source should be provided with bibliographical information, and perhaps a link confirming its existence and purpose(etc... it is what the author says it is). Tenmei seems to be unable to understand that. Arbitrators, can you explain this? That a book, once SOURCED WITH CORRECT INFORMATION AND A LINK, IS LIABLE TO BE USED.
Tenmei's behaviour
If there is one issue worthy of being dealt with here, it is Tenmei's inability to communicate and work with other editors, as well as respecting his consensus. Other editors have expressed concerns about this, but it was ignored by him and sadly he brought this to ArbCom, disrupting other editors whose efforts could have been used elsewhere.
Tenmei, despite his lack of knowledge on the subject, is very tentedious and engages in long, difficult-to-understand arguments that disrupt the consensus. As shown here, other editors have raised concerns about this:
Other editors have repeatedly warned him, only to have their advice ignored. In his extreme, Tenmei even engaged in vandalism, as shown here, on the article Salting the earth, in which he wanted to merge the article in question into. THis was a clear case of vandalism and disruption of WP:POINT. He is unable to communicate or be understood by other editors. diff
In addition, Tenmei treats other editors with disrespect, striking out their comments. He also does not understand several key wikipedia policies, such as WP:Point. This is perhaps best illustrated here: diff
Tenmei also seems to have a troubled history on wikipedia, as evidenced here: diff diff
Evidence presented by Tenmei
My presentation of evidence begins with the spare approach already disclosed in Issues #1, #2, #3 and #4.
The evidence templates presume a punitive outcome which we need not accept a priori. The ascent of reason presents a better hortatory objective. Thd deliberative process has already helped me discover how to move beyond my initial statement in that I now know it's better to incorporate graphics as a tool for parsing a conflation of policy and content.
Misplaced Pages is better served if the ArbCom process manages to move us beyond those overly rigid "solutions" which were identified as unworkable in 2008. A relevant maxim is
I'm challenged to figure out how to comply with ArbCom procedures without mis-framing the issues or causing unintended consequences. My thinking is informed by Taxonomy, which explains that a military taxonomy of terms to describe various types of military operations is fundamentally affected by the way all elements are defined and addressed -- not unlike framing. In terms of a specific military operation, for example, a taxonomic strategy based on differentiation and categorization of the entities participating would produce results which evolve quite differently from a strategy based on functional objective of an operation such as peacekeeping, disaster relief, or counter-terrorism. The illustrative text in the evidence templates implies categorization based on Misplaced Pages's policies, rules, guidelines, etc. ... which is a little different from a strategy based on Misplaced Pages's functional objectives.
I assert core functional objectives in the corollary maxims "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information." and "Process is important."
Cost/benefit analysis of collaborative conflict resolution reveals benefits from reduced duration of conflicts and reduced likelihood of escalation of conflicts. The metrics of ArbCom's purpose are fulfilled when the process affects more than just the parties' concerns and issues. Academic integrity must be an indispensable priority because, unlike "simple" incivility, the damage caused by editors misquoting, plagiarizing and editorializing destroys the credibility of our encyclopedia. --Tenmei (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Asserting Verifiability is not temerity
Asserting Use English is not effrontery
Asserting Burden is not insolence
Asserting core policies is not disruption
Asserting conflation with intrusive off-topic issues
Response to Teeninvestor's "Consensus reached at subject article"
Claims of benign consensus-building are belied here and here. --Tenmei (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Response to Teeninvestor's "Alleged misuse of sources"
|
Teeninvestor's claims: |
Inescapable issues:
|
|
_________________________
|
_________________________
|
The inconclusive thread cited here simply withers in a setting marked by the links and diffs above. --Tenmei (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Response to Teeninvestor's "Tenmei's behaviour"
Addressing the concluding sentence, I would have thought "troubled history" is too frail a reed, relying on WP:AN/I threads with only tangential bearing on issues here. The first diff is now shown more clearly in its content context because of this; and the second diff is established its relevant context by this. --Tenmei (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Notes
- Wikiquote attributes "If your only tool is a hammer ..." to Abraham Maslow, and this fact is readily verifiable; Keyes, Ralph. (2006). The quote verifier: who said what, where, and when. p. 87.
- Strang, Heather et al. (2001). Restorative justice and civil society, p. 165; Harris, Geoff. Abstract: "'If Your Only Tool Is a Hammer, Any Issue Will Look like a Nail:' Building Conflict Resolution and Mediation Capacity in South African Universities,"Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning. Vol. 55, No. 1 (January 2008), pp. 93-101.
- ^ Downie, Richard D. "Defining integrated operations," Joint Force Quarterly (Washington, D.C.). July, 2005.
- "Building a taxonomy and nomenclature of collaborative writing to improve interdisciplinary research and practice" (abstract), The Journal of Business Communication. January 1, 2004.
- Harris, "If your only tool is a hammer."
References
- Harris, Geoff. "'If Your Only Tool Is a Hammer, Any Issue Will Look like a Nail:' Building Conflict Resolution and Mediation Capacity in South African Universities,"Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and Educational Planning. Vol. 55, No. 1 (January 2008), pp. 93-101.
- Keyes, Ralph. (2006). The quote verifier: who said what, where, and when. New York: Macmillan. 10-ISBN 0-312-34004-4; 13-ISBN 978-0-312-34004-9
- Oneka, Michael. "If a hammer is your only tool, everything starts to look like a nail." Resource (Wageningen University and Research Centre). February 8, 1996.
- Strang, Heather and John Braithwaite. (2001). Restorative justice and civil society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10-ISBN 0-521-00053-X; 13-ISBN 978-0-521-00053-6
Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.