This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hersfold (talk | contribs) at 02:46, 10 December 2009 (archive amendment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Statements from uninvolved editors at case opening

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)

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)

• To Cool Hand Luke I did not intend to add more to here, but contents from the contested book have been added to 13 articles including even FA article such as Ming Dynasty by Teeninvester and the banned user for over the past months. The source was already brought up to WP:RSN/Archive28 for its questionable reliability. Some of them, Qing and Yuan Dynasties debate and Comparison between Roman and Han Empires remind me of a RfAr case. If the two articles do not have the book source, 1/3 of or whole contents would be gone. As for what is the behavioral problem questioned by Cool luke Hand, I think the two main user have enough shown it on this page.--Caspian blue 20:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• To Sam Blacketer I think I said the banned user is one of factors that make hard to resolve the dispute. --Caspian blue 15:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• To Ncmvocalist I think you just said about "general procedures", not about "the actual disputes".--Caspian blue 15:52, 29 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)

Response to above comment

What is more troubling is that depending on usage, 爱国主义 could also mean jingoism. In addition, while looking at the userpages, User:Teeninvestor is a Chinese, while User:Tenmei is heavily involved in Japanese articles. This could be a point of contention. SYSS Mouse (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Request to amend prior case: Tang Dynasty

Initiated by Tenmei (talk) at 00:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Case affected

Tang Dynasty arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Principles -- The procedure by which the principles were developed was arbitrary & unclear; and despite my explaining more than once that the outcome was not understood, no follow-up ensued and I was told simply to wait.
2. Finding -- The process by which the findings were adduced was arbitrary & unclear; and despite my explaining more than once that the outcome was not understood, no follow-up ensued and I was told simply to wait.
3. Remedy -- How the remedies were contrived doesn't matter to me; however, what does matter is that despite my explaining more than once that the outcome was not understood, no follow-up ensued and I was told simply to wait. Now, to my bitter surprise, John Vandenberg declares my words "inflammatory" in the edit summary which accompanied the deletion of the Restatement's addenda here.

Talk:Order of Culture#Restatement

My contributions to this not-very-complicated thread have been informed by a four-prong examination at each and every point in a predicatbly 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 each cited source reflect that consensus?

• 3. Are the sources actually supporting the assertions for which they are cited?

• 4. Are unsourced assertions being used?

Can't we agree that this provides a commonly accepted foundation for our work together. --Tenmei (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Addenda: President Obama's remarks in Beijing were filmed by China Central Television and excerpts were re-broadcast. In my view, a paraphrase of one paragraph would seem constructive in the context created by Dekimasu's comment below. Obama observed, "There is a Chinese proverb: Consider the past, and you shall know the future. Surely, we have known setbacks and challenges ... the notion that we must be adversaries is not predestined -- not when we consider the past .... build upon our mutual interests, and engag on the basis of mutual respect."

-- The White House, Office of the Press Secretary: "Remarks by President Barak Obama at Town Hall Meeting with Future Chinese Leaders, Museum of Science and Technology, Shanghai, China," November 16, 2009.

Caspian blue -- I wonder if a 19th century, American-English idiomatic phrase may be helpful here? a step in a constructive direction? I wonder if it might be seen as ameliorative to state bluntly that you are barking up the wrong tree. --Tenmei (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

See also Barking up the wrong tree.--Tenmei (talk) 06:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

List of "Involved parties" (permanent link)

1. Tenmei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
2. Teeninvestor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Kraftlos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. PericlesofAthens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. Arilang1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that the "involved parties" are aware of this request

• 2-Teeninvestor
• 3-Kraftlos
• 4-PericlesofAthens
• 5-Arilang1234

Confirmation that other contributors to Evidence or Workshop pages are also aware

• Yaan
• Nick-D
• Coldmachine
• Bueller 007
• Penwhale
• Caspian blue
• Patar knight
• SYSS Mouse
• G Purevdorj

Amend this case by annulment

Statement by Tenmei

• A. This case was renamed "Tang Dynasty" for ArbCom's convenience only. I projected that the consequences would become unworkable, as I tried to clarify in in a response to John Vandenberg before the case was accepted here:

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.

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

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)

• B. This case evolved into a Gordian Knot, which ArbCom only made worse as too many disparate issues were conflated. The procedural flaws rendered meaningless whatever procedures normally apply in other cases:

• Clerks answered no questions about (a) the locus of dispute, (b) the names of the parties, nor (c) the procedures; nor were alternate procedures for seeking clarification proposed or permitted
• ArbCom responded to no motion proposed by the parties in order to clarify the locus of dispute and the parties (a) the locus of dispute, (b) the names of the parties, nor (c) the procedures; nor were alternate procedures for seeking clarification proposed or permitted.
• ArbCom and the parties explicitly identified problems in understanding Tenmei's contributions to evidence, workshop and proposed decision pages; but no alternate pre-decisional procedures for seeking clarification were proposed or permitted. Even as core issues moved towards resolution here, ArbCom snatched failure from the jaws of success, e.g.,

<font=dark blue>Summarizing "more or less the entire dispute"

Teeninvestor's summary and questions at User talk:Newyorkbrad deserve special emphasis. They serve as demonstrable proof that our non-standard ArbCom case has been a constructive exercise.

In this diff (16 May), the work invested in ArbCom evidence and workshop pages is shown to have been worthwhile.

In the ArbCom process, Teeninvestor's conception of the issues has been distilled to produce these few sentences:

"an 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. diff. 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."

• C. Post-decision, I posted and User:FloNight blanked the following:

"ArbCom fails when, at the end of any ArbCom case, parties are left uncomprehending. In the final analysis, the modest remedies of this ArbCom decision are no burden. I don't need to understand or agree in order to comply. However, until I can discern a relationship between the adduced principles and findings of fact, I can't accept this decision. I can't move on.

"I feel cheated because I can't square the adduced principles and findings of fact with explicit core policies. This sense of being tricked is exacerbated by my inability to assess the impact of issues which were not addressed because I didn't know that the locus of dispute had been changed nor did I know that the scope had been enlarged.

"This lingering uncertainty affects every aspect of my Misplaced Pages participation going foreward; and the difficulty is amplified because I'm deprived of formerly meaningful wiki-catchwords and wiki-terms which might have otherwise helped me to evaluate what happened. I'm forced to guess that the decision-making was affected by other factors which remain unknowable; and that's impossible to parse."

• D. Post-decision, non-party Caspian blue was encompassed in the remedies because of something not clearly specified or understood or explained in Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Proposed decision, e.g., Tenmei is instructed not to interact with or comment with regard toTeeninvestor or Caspian blue on any page of Misplaced Pages (except in the course of legitimate dispute resolution initiated by others, if necessary, and in that case subject to remedy 2 below). In the post-decision talk page threads, I knew who was pushing for punishment; but I neither understood nor had any input into (a) the locus of this coda dispute, nor (c) the ad hoc procedures which excluded me entirely; nor were alternate procedures for seeking clarification proposed or permitted.
• E. Although ArbCom did announce plans to find volunteers to explain what I did not understand, but no one willing to assist me in figuring out what happened has yet been found. My continuing need to know is not because of a chip on shoulder, nor because I'm mindlessly flogging a dead horse, nor am I seeking to make a mountain out of a molehill.
• F. I have learned the hard way that I am stigmatized as if the objective of this process were designed to contrive a class of wiki-felons; and at the same time, I am without the requisite understanding and comprehension which is essential to avoid recidivism.
• G. I have repeatedly sought further explanations from ArbCom, but none were forthcoming, although I was encouraged to wait patiently; and now User:FloNight implies that this is never part of a process because "the posting of the Final Decision is the natural ending point for when arbitrators stop discussing the case with the involved parties" -- see here.

• H.The process and procedures which led to a decision was arbitrary and unclear. The flaws of input and output exacerbated the consequences of cumulative errors (see GIGO). The remedies and follow-up were unhelpful and wrongfully stigmatizing.

• Therefore, the entire case should be annulled in order to demonstrate unequivocally that ArbCom is something other than a trap or a trick for the unwary.

• Annulment is quashes the wrongful use of the ArbCom as weapon for labeling me a wiki-felon, stigmatized forever for bad behaviour.

• This annulment can be achieved in the same manner as proposed by John Vandenberg in review of The Troubles. --Tenmei (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Tenmei's reply to Bueller 007

Yes, I too thought I understood the arbitration decision until JohnVandenberg's edit at Talk:Order of Culture suggested I did not. Finding something about which we can agree is a constructive first step in responding to your statement below. That said, I learned something useful at Misplaced Pages:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 4 when Nihonjoe wrote: "Please don't attribute something to me which is not correct." You have not been specific, but I adopt his "measured" language as a mild and non-confrontational expression of disagreement with other elements of your statement. --Tenmei (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Tenmei's reply to Nick-D

Yes, you are correct in remembering that I initiated the RFArb. Finding something about which we can agree is a constructive first step in responding to your statement below. That said, I learned something useful at Misplaced Pages:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 4 when Nihonjoe wrote: "Please don't attribute something to me which is not correct." You have not been specific, but I adopt his "measured" language as a mild and non-confrontational expression of disagreement with other elements of your statement. --Tenmei (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Tenmei's reply to Teeninvestor

Yes, I too join you in hoping this case will be resolved satisfactorily. Finding something about which we can agree is a constructive first step in responding to your statement below. You have not been specific, but I adopt his "measured" language as a mild and non-confrontational expression of disagreement with other elements of your statement. --Tenmei (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Tenmei's reply to Caspian blue

Yes, you correctly identify something I'd forgotten, a single edit of Gyeongju in July. It was just one otherwise unremarkable reverts in a series which is recorded as part of my User contributions list:

• A. 14:48, 30 July 2009 diff Chōji ‎ (Undid revision 305060223 by 166.137.134.136 repeated vandalism -- stop)
• B. 14:49, 30 July 2009 diff East Sea ‎ (Undid revision 305060121 by 166.137.134.136 repeated vandalism -- stop)
• C. 14:50, 30 July 2009 diff Kujō Yoritsugu ‎ (Undid revision 305060035 by 1166.137.134.136 repeated vandalism -- stop)
• D. 14:52, 30 July 2009 diff Gyeongju ‎ (Undid revision 305059936 by 166.137.134.136 repeated vandalism -- stop)

Finding something about which we can agree is a constructive first step in responding to your statement below. That said, I learned something useful at Misplaced Pages:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 4 when Nihonjoe wrote: "Please don't attribute something to me which is not correct." Where you have not been specific, I adopt his "measured" language as a mild and non-confrontational expression of disagreement with other elements of your statement.

I also learned something at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Vote/AGK when User:Manning Bartlett parsed an issue which is no less relevant in this setting. I adopt his measured words as my own: "There is a degree of (possibly unintentional) misrepresentation in Caspian's comment ....". For example, no source exists to support what is perhaps the most dramatic claim: "According to him, I'm a foolish barking dog" (italics in original below). I did not write nor say nor think anything like that. Moreover, the explicit context created by the Restatement section and by Obama's conciliatory remarks (as linked and reproduced above) is simply inconsistent with this and other strained accusations. Beyond blunt denial, I don't know to rebuff extravagant "frequent smearing naming-calling like "crying wolf" and his frequent mention about Korean ethnicity." Overreaching is often recognized as unpersuasive, even dissuasive. --Tenmei (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:Wikistalking is overreaching; but in this context, serious consequences ensue. There is nothing inherently vicious in the catchphrase teachable moment, nor was there offense in a question presented to AGK in 2009, nor anything I need explain in at User talk:AGK in 2008 here.

This was perverse before; and now it wanders into territory which is even more difficult to parse. At a minimum, I repeat:

A. "There is a degree of (possibly unintentional) misrepresentation" in Caspian's blue's strategy; and I'm not alone in identifying this elephant in the room.

B. "Please don't attribute something to me which is not correct," e.g.,

Do the following illustrate "frequent smearing naming-calling like "crying wolf"? "bashing"? "mocking"? "frequent mention about Korean ethnicity"?

• diff, 1-below "Unlike Capsian blue, whose feigned offense developed into a pattern, my edit history supports no inference that I admit to being aggrieved without cause or thought."
• diff, 2-below ".. section has a citation with a link to an encyclopedia article written in Korean -- yes; but there is no evidence that anyone, not User: Caspian blue nor anyone else has actually read it, nor that any part of that Korean text is accurately reflected in the English prose posted in our article."
• diff, 3-below. "In the period before User:Caspian blue busied himself with escalating complaint, I had already posted pre-Hepburn transliterations of the names of some of the ambassadors as contrived by Julius Klaproth and Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat in 1834."
• diff, 4-below. "At some point, User:Caspian blue added a link to one of them referencing an online encylopedia in Korean; but no more effort was invested in improving this article."
• diff, 5-below. "Caspian blue's contrived drama and exaggerated, aggrieved rhetoric served the ultimate goal of merging a third article with carefully developed sources into those without sources. At the same time, as evidenced by the thread above, Caspian blue resisted all efforts to find a name which would comply with English naming standards."
• ...?
• ...?
• "name-calling like crying wolf" ...? When?
• ...?
• name-calling about "Korean ethnicity ...? When?

Caspian blue selects ed these five instances of perceived misconduct. plus my participation in the thread at Talk:Order of Culture. I posted these examples so that I can figure out how to grapple with these complaints as a group. There is a common theme -- in each diff, the focus has to do with improving the article (permitted) and not a personal attack (not permitted). In each, I acknowledge that User:Caspian blue's actions affect a context of figuring out what to do first and what to do next. In this context, I find myself wondering how exactly does this fit in with the claim that Taemyr "criticized Tenmei's behaviors (his abusive tagging of templates, disregards to Korean naming convention, attacks about Caspian blue) in the last six months?

In the context of this house of cards, my focus is forward-looking. I hazard a guess that these are reasonable and timely comments and questions. If not, why not? --Tenmei (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

In the section above, I've stricken arguably meaningful responses in order emphasize one fulcrum sentence in Caspian blue's statement:

By editing articles that naturally tend to invite "conflicts" between two different nationals, Tenmei is repeating his old bad habit by just moving onto other editors in dispute such as Historiographer.

Each of the axiomatic presumptions are wrong -- unproven, unprovable except by the circular logic of post hoc ergo propter hoc which held ArbCom in thrall in June.