Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Enkyo2 (talk | contribs) at 03:11, 24 May 2009 (→Request for clarification: conseqeunces and ramifications). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

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.

ArbCom has failed to the degree that that the gap separating the parties has widened rather than narrowed.

ArbCom needs to help the parties by specifying the scope of the case and the locus of dispute. In this more fully-developed context.

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. --Tenmei (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

At the beginning, before this ArbCom case was opened:

• Vassyana noted that "issues may be a bit complicated and/or require a bit of expert assistance."
• FloNight noted that "a better chance to have an amenable resolution in this particular situation."
• Jayvdb noted that "a more appropriate way forward hasn't presented itself."

In the context these three comments create, I don't see how any one of them is validated by a failure to address the specific questions this motion presents.

This motion simply seeks to clarify the locus of dispute and the scope of this ArbCom case; but the implied consequences and ramifications may prove to be no less important. --Tenmei (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)