This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Enkyo2 (talk | contribs) at 19:07, 18 May 2009 (→Complying with ArbCom expectations: seeking feedback/clarification). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:07, 18 May 2009 by Enkyo2 (talk | contribs) (→Complying with ArbCom expectations: seeking feedback/clarification)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Tenmei to ArbCom clerks
The following constructive comment was posted on my talk page:
- 21:59, 6 April Teeninvestor posted I find it strange that in your response, you did not respond to any of my diffs and resorted to complex, vextatious arguments that no one can understand. Also, keep in mind the limit is 1000 words...
I need more time to make my contribution shorter. We have been encouraged to please submit our evidence "within one week, if possible." This suggests that I may reasonably ask for more time. --Tenmei (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- The rough draft will be cut tomorrow. I plan to finish editing on Friday. --Tenmei (talk) 04:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Teeninvestor characterises my arguments as vexatious, which implies that he/she understands something more than nothing. In the same sentence, Teeninvestor alleges that no one can understand my arguments, which implies that the label "vexatious" is a hollow complaint. This is a bit puzzling, but I guess I probably get the point ...? --Tenmei (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Complying with ArbCom expectations
Teeninvestor argues that my serial ArbCom contributions are not constructive and that they are unhelpful -- diff and diff.
If there are errors of procedure which I'm wrong to overlook, please identify how I can ameliorate these flaws in my ArbCom participation.
My strategy is to try to understand the points Teeninvestor raises and then to address them seriatim. This is a massive task, given the manner in which "Evidence provided by Teeninvestor" was constructed. In my view, this task is made more difficult because of the way Teeninvestor's proposed principles, findings of fact and remedies are laid out. In the context Teeninvestor contrives, I am guided by WP:SILENCE which I take to mean that the one who is silent is said to agree (qui tacet consentit).
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. --Tenmei (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Note how no body else, even the very biased Mongol editors who wanted to delete the article, stopped raising the point but you did. Also look at your history of disputes. Learning something Tenmei? I was back from a 5 day wikibreak and your comments are all over the place. Geez.Teeninvestor (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Request for clarification
Questions about the scope of this case and the locus of dispute ArbCom hopes to resolve are inter-related. Clarification is needed. What is this case about?
- If the scope this case is enlarged, as Teeninvestor and Caspian blue would like, then I have more work to do.
- If the locus of dispute about "Tenmei's behaviour" has been construed expansively in this ArbCom case, I need to address other issues than I've already acknowledged.
Scope of this ArbCom case
My initial complaint encompassed three specific issues and one broader topic.
However, from the outset, Teeninvestor has contended that we need to refocus the debate. Teeninvestor asserted here that my "behaviour is a bigger issue than the actual 'dispute' at the article" and Teeninvestor argued:
- "Although earlier I suggested this case was not useful, I urge arbitrators to accept their case and refocus their attention on User:Tenmei's history of disruption, rather than the 'dispute' at Inner Asia during the Tang dynasty."
I understood this diff as acknowledging a narrowed focus in this ArbCom case, e.g.,
- "... a bigger issue than the actual 'dispute' at the article ...."
- "... rather than the 'dispute' at Inner Asia during the Tang dynasty."
In "evidence" presented by Teeninvestor and Caspian blue, both seek to expand the scope of this case. They want to draw ArbCom's attention to a Gordian Knot of allegations which they bundle together under the rubric "Tenmei's behaviour." The fact that a motion for expansion has been presented becomes in itself a kind of acknowledgment that the ambit of this case is construed less broadly.
In the evidence presented by both, significant attention to complaints and allegations which I construe as arising outside the scope of Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. Bluntly, they are trying to leverage this ArbCom case as handy weapon for punishing my temerity.
In my view, these claims are not encompassed withing the ambit of this ArbCom case. If I'm expected to address these allegations, I won't shrink from the task; however, I'm reluctant to begin without some assurance that this is the right place and time for it. More specifically, I need to know what is outside the scope of this ArbCom case ...?
1. In the context of this proposed motion?
- 1.2 Motion to expand the scope of the case to Tenmei's behaviour and WP:harassment?
2. In the context of this proposed injunction?
- 2.1 Tenmei should stop harassing editors for now?
3. In the context of these proposed remedies?
- 5.3.1 User:Tenmei should be reminded that WP:TLDR is disruptive?
- 5.3.2 User:Tenmei should learn WP:CIVIL?
- 5.3.3 User:Tenmei should not abuse the dispute resolution process?
- 5.3.4 User:Tenmei is reminded that WP:CONSENSUS is necessary?
- 5.3.5 User:Tenmei reminded of WP:AGF?
- 5.3.6 User:Tenmei reminded of WP:NPA?
- 5.3.7 User:Tenmei reminded of WP:BATTLE?
- 5.3.8 Challengers to WP:RS should do research?
- 5.3.9 User:Tenmei to be banned for 1 year?
- 5.3.10 User:Tenmei is to be placed under Mentorship with strong restrictions?
- 5.3.11 User:Tenmei to be subject to Chinese history topic ban?
This conflated array of specific allegations, general complaints, and innuendo has become too complicated to parse simply or easily.
Locus of dispute in this ArbCom case
I define the locus of dispute as arising primarily from the fact that the parties are contributing, commenting and arguing at cross purposes to each other. This disjunctive pattern of diffs at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty is repeated in the context of the workshop page. For example, my attempts to answer Teeninvestor's questions are called non-responsive. At the same time, Teeninvestor claims not to understand much of what I write -- here and here.
Simultaneously, I discern no correspondence between any specific elements of my questions in what Teeninvestor labels as "response", e.g., 3.1.1. response (1st), 3.1.2. response (2nd), 3.1.3. response (3rd), 3.1.4. response (4th).
ArbCom has failed to the degree that that the gap separating the parties has widened rather than narrowed.
Caspian blue's claims of victimization and harassment would unrelated. I would have thought Caspian blue concerns were tangential. If not, which of those manifold offenses and injuries are to be considered in this case?
These are not simple matters.
Proposal
ArbCom needs to help the parties by specifying the scope of the case and the locus of dispute. In this more fully-developed context,
- Vassyana was prescient in commenting:
- "From all appearances, there are still multiple avenues left untried and available for the resolution of both the conduct and content portions of this dispute. Some of the issues may be a bit complicated and/or require a bit of expert assistance, but in the scheme of things that can be said about quite a large portion of the topics we cover."
- FloNight's was optimistic in commenting:
- "Although the situation is more premature than most disputes ArbCom accepts, I think that an arbitration case has a better chance to have an amenable resolution in this particular situation than would happen without ArbCom's involvement."
- Jayvdb was correct in recognizing:
- "There are issues here, and a more appropriate way forward hasn't presented itself."
Regardless of what others decide to do, I'm committed to doing everything I can to ensure that this ArbCom case serves a useful, worthwhile function; but I need guidance in figuring out what is part of this case and what's not.
In order to make this case worth the investment of time and attention, the parties need to address the same issues ... but the chasm which separates the participants is apparently too wide. I simply can't figure out how to bridge this divide without a timely feedback from the committee.
Given the current state of evidence and workshop pages, I propose that ArbCom puts off considering a proposed decision. Instead, I propose that ArbCom helps the parties by defining the scope the case and the locus of dispute. Then the participants can modify evidence and workshop diffs accordingly, and at that time, a proposed decision can unfold in a conventional fashion. --Tenmei (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)