Misplaced Pages

:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty - 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:Requests for arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Paul August (talk | contribs) at 16:31, 12 June 2009 (→Enforcement by block: fix count). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:31, 12 June 2009 by Paul August (talk | contribs) (→Enforcement by block: fix count)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Misplaced Pages Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Case Opened on 13:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Case Closed on 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

Requests for comment

Statement by Tenmei

This complaint encompasses 3 specific issues and 1 broader topic. Teeninvestor's refusal to agree to mediation thwarted the opportunity to have his views confirmed or modified. I cannot walk away from this because the concepts are at the very heart of my participation in collaborative writing. ArbCom cannot allow this to go unaddressed because the consequences are too grave:

  • Issue 1: I posted the following diff; and if I was wrong in any part of it, I must know so that I will not continue to make similar mistakes in the future.
Teeninvestor insists that words and actions consistent with this diff are disruptive. If what I've said and done is persistent disruption, it needs to stop.
When I and others questioned an unfamiliar text in Chinese, Teeninvestor asserted forcefully that I and others had the burden to prove error before deleting the edit and/or before posting a "dubious"-tag or a "synthesis"-tag on an article page. This view was expressed with increasing levels of derision personal affronts. Example: diff. If what I've done is persistent vandalism, it needs to stop.
  • Issue 4: In Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty, real-world factions have vied for control, turning it into a polemical battleground. In the venue which evolved before my eyes, long-term warriors have proven to be toxic. Under "battlefield" conditions as I encountered them, academic integrity becomes an all-encompassing priority. Any other course of action undercuts the credibility of the article and our collaborative wiki-encyclopedia. Although Issues 1-3 stand on their own, they have become conflated in real-world disputes over 21st-century borders or oil and mineral rights. The initial impetus for this article was "salting the earth" in an article about Central Asia in the 7th-8th century in order to undercut a dispute in an article about China in the 12th-13th centuries; and the article has been continually attacked by those intending to affect current affairs by re-writing history. This perverts my ability to conribute to an article about a relatively minor topic; and it became increasingly difficult to follow on a coherent thread of reason.
The title of Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty suggests something to do with the history of 7th-8th century Central Asia, but an unexplained backstory or subtext intruded unexpectedly again and again. This bigger problem cannot be resolved with this case, but at least ArbCom is now expressly alerted to the existence of a pernicious metastasis which will continue ad nauseam in other articles until effective counter-measures can be contrived. On the basis of my editing experience, this is not an isolated incident. The specifics are limited to the article and parties here; and the ambit of this dispute is also emblematic of problems affecting unrelated editors and articles. --Tenmei (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to John Vandenberg

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.

In this Euler diagram, "A"=article and/or non-English language text and "B"=Misplaced Pages policy which provides a context in which the article is created.
In this alternate diagram, "A"=article and/or non-English language text and "B"=Misplaced Pages policy which provides a context in which the article is created.

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

Verifiability/Use English/Burdens conflated with content issues

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)

Response to Risker and Carcharoth

If an ArbCom review of Issues #1, #2, and #3 can be helped by contributions "with respect to the interpretation/verifiability & sourcing issues," here are arguably relevant googled links:

In this non-controversial context, a more nuanced vocabulary might develop. This is a practical step, which could be part of what Risker and Carcharoth had in mind? --Tenmei (talk) 17:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Roger Davies

Yes, an otherwise intractable problem is presented; and its parts are easily conflated as a Gordian Knot. Unraveling this knot is well within ArbCom's ability and purview. Crucially, as John Vandenberg observes, "a more appropriate way forward hasn't presented itself."

No, the non-specific "other avenues" you mention are unavailing. The nested, narrowly-focused policy fundamentals are ill-served by abstention, which is neither practicable nor practical. The slim history of this "request"-thread offers proof enough that there is no better venue than this one.

Issues #1, #2 and #3 are ripe. Much of Issue #4 may not be ripe, but abstaining becomes indistinguishable from failure to acknowledge how its emblematic conflation affects every attempt to construe Issues #1, #2 and #3. Candidly, all other dispute resolution venues become mere exercises in futility if your ArbCom colleagues join you in deciding to abstain here. --Tenmei (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Penwhale

With all due respect, I object to anything which causes any potential ArbCom participant to feel recusal is necessary. I would hope for the fullest participation in addressing Issues #1, #2 and #3, none of which require any special language skills. In fact, this has been repeated seriatim in the explanatory language which was drafted to support and amplify the community's understanding of Misplaced Pages's core policies.

We all have no choice but to notice that Teeninvestor does not address the specific concerns I've raised -- as if what I've written were entirely meaningless, insubstantial, impenetrable. Instead, he/she poses an entirely different set of issues which constitute his/her "spin" on the gravamen of dispute; moreover, he/she argues that these alternate issues are not worth ArbCom involvement. On the basis of his/her strained reasoning, the offer to examine books in Chinese is unjustified for at least two reasons: (1) such an examination would do nothing to assist in addressing the issues I raise; and (2) the issues Teeninvestor proposes in the alternative are first to be construed in light of Misplaced Pages policies. In that sense, even if your offer were to be seen as constructive and welcome at some point in the future, it is demonstrably premature at this preliminary phase of ArbCom consideration. --Tenmei (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to FloNight

Your words suggest something which needs to be made explicit in this "tipping point" venue. Are you familiar with George Santayana's common-sense words: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" ...?

As you or others may not know, Wikiquote expands on this theme by explaining that the philosopher's clever turn of phrase has many paraphrases and variants, e.g.,

  • Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
  • Those who do not remember their past are condemned to repeat their mistakes.
  • Those who do not read history are doomed to repeat it.
  • Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors are destined to repeat them.

It is my intent that Santayana's hortatory saying is underscored here in a very plain and non-controversial manner. The not-unexpected ways in which this request-thread has developed are curious. It convinces me that this maxim should have been introduced earlier. In my view, this concept should be factored in whatever process ensues. --Tenmei (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Cool Hand Luke

I wonder if you might be persuaded to re-visit the two-pronged rationale for your vote?

A. Initially, you posit that the "parties don't present this as a behavioral problem," but my Issue #1 statement is expressly couched in terms of my alleged "disruptive editing" and "vandalism." Indeed, Teeninvestor's barrage of complaints at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty and elsewhere are mirrored in his/her focused contributions to this request-thread as he/she points towards
B. The second prong of your explanatory note proposes far more difficult concepts. You worry that ArbCom doesn't "have a clear idea about what we hope to accomplish with arbitration." The answer to your implied question is "Yes, you are correct." This request-thread acknowledges that three specific issues are each married with a "bigger problem" which, in my view, "cannot be resolved with this case, but at least ArbCom is now expressly alerted to the existence of a pernicious metastasis which will continue ad nauseam in other articles until effective counter-measures can be contrived."

In general, I take it that ArbCom is most-often a post hoc forum. There are other unstated assumptions here -- that ArbCom need not re-invent the wheel with each new dispute. The members of ArbCom are uniquely positioned to learn collectively from collective and individual experiences. Towards this hortatory objective, I argue that you should change your vote as a first step in addressing an aspect of a broader metastasis which has proved resistant to other therapeutic interventions.

Individually and collectively, Issues #1, #2, #3 and #4 present an opportunity in which ArbCom's involvement can have significant consequences in the community beyond the parties here; and as a practical matter, as John Vandenberg summarizes succinctly, "a more appropriate way forward hasn't presented itself." --Tenmei (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Sam Blacketer

You are explicitly on point in recognizing that there are no easy answers here. --Tenmei (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how best to rebuff your mistaken view that this is a "highly specialised dispute affecting a very small section of the project." Perhaps there may be cause to reconsider that assessment in light of the following talk page threads:
Perhaps these links suggest a revised perspective? --Tenmei (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Teeninvestor

The problem from my POV is outlined below:

1. Tenmei's misguided editing of the article, despite his lack of knowledge on this article, as shown by this statement:

Example: diff. In working with him, he has deleted many sections without explanation, despite them being sourced.

2. Tenmei's violation of WP:V; Although Tenmei insists I violated WP:V, he has so far refused to provide a single source to back up his claims. This is in itself violative of WP:V. Other users have already informed him of this error, as shown by this post from a respected fellow editor. So far, however, Tenmei has refused to provide a single example or source to support his claims. This, I believe, sums up the main point of the dispute:

Talk:Inner_Asia_during_the_Tang_Dynasty#diff So far, Tenmei has failed to find a single error with the source or the article itself, but he insists on pushing his own POV and deleting large sections of it without explanation.

3. Tenmei's violation of WP:CONSENSUS. In his refusal to collaborate and listen with other editors, he engaged in pushing his POV on others.
User_talk:PericlesofAthens#diff

Talk:Inner_Asia_during_the_Tang_Dynasty#Sources_used Tenmei even engaged in vandalism in violation of WP:POINT, attempting to merge the article with "Salting the earth", as seen here.

4. Tenmei's misunderstanding of the policy with WP:BURDEN:

WP:BURDEN means that I must cite and source my information, which I have done accordingly. His insistence that I provide a "translation" of every piece of information that I used in Chinese is not only unduly burdensome, and would in fact prevent the use of any foreign-language source on wikipedia. This is not to mention that I have not used any direct translations from the book, which I believe the policy refers to.

Tenmei made repeated attempts to impose his POV, even when I was working on other articles. I only hope this committee can put an end to Tenmei's attempts to impose his own POV so me and other editors can use our efforts in more useful matters. To sum it up, a quote about what must be done: Talk:Inner_Asia_during_the_Tang_Dynasty#diff

I would prefer it if Arbitrators did not hear this case, as I believe this is, at heart, simply a misunderstanding of wikipedia policy and a minor content dispute between a majority of editors and one obstinate one; it would be a waste of mine, Tenmei's and arbitrators' time to resolve this. It would reward users for hounding others through abusing wikipedia's dispute resolution process. I believe Tenmei demonstrates the below signs: "http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:DE#Signs_of_disruptive_editing". Teeninvestor (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Yaan

The source I am using is a history book published in China. Also, this adds to my point that this is really the result of a content dispute/obstinacy of one editor, user:Tenmei. It is a tertiary source, I believe(compendium of old histories which were secondary sources). In addition, I provided links for the site of the book, which (unfortunately) Tenmei did not use.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Links to source in question(in Chinese)

Unrelated:

Some books published by the publisher(a well-known publishing house in China) Teeninvestor (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I know that the Inner Mongolian People's Publishing House exists (I knew that before, I even own a book published there), but I am actually more interested in who the authors are. Btw. WP:RS suggests that tertiary sources "should not be used for detailed discussion". Yaan (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
So, is the Li Bo who wrote the book this guy? Yaan (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe it would be a secondary source, as it summarizes ancient histories(primary sources). As to the author, he has the same name, but im not sure it may be the same guy.

"《中华五千年》共上、下两册。每本书都配有史料图片说明，给人以新鲜感、真实感。不仅使你了解中华民族从尧、舜、禹的传说到清朝（鸦片战争前）的历史发展脉络，同时也学习到许多历史、文化、科学、生产方面的知识，受到爱国主义的教育和陶冶." This is the summary of the book found on the site.

Questions about reliability

I think the WP:RN comment as well as links I provided is enough to stifle complaints. This source is a history book published in China, and a legitimate source. I wouldn't say it is "contested".

So far, no one has said anything about: 1. Errors. 2. Unverifiability(links provided) Therefore, it is a legitimate source.

On a side note, I fail to see what ArbCom's intervention will achieve, besides wasting the time of the participating editors. So far, no complaints have been raised about the article Inner Asia during the Tang dynasty which has achieved a stable version. In addition, the sources & links I provided have shown that the book is verifiable. So I fail to see what ArbCom can achieve on this matter, besides allowing Tenmei to demonstrate his rhetorical skills.

In addition, no problems were occured (besides natural disagreeement and argument) in terms of say, edit warring, harassment, etc... I believe that technically there is "no problem" left to solve. Teeninvestor (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to Tenmei

Tenmei, you're not getting the point. You have yet to present a single source or other thing rejecting my source, and have not explained any of your reasoning besides using unintelligble bureaucratic doublespeak that belongs more in a government file than on wikipedia. Remember WP:BURO. Also, you have yet to address the concerns of editors such as Pericles and Myself regarding, to put it kindly, what is your problem with the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to FayssalF

I believe, and I will iterate again, this is not a matter for arbitration. It is, at most, a content dispute(in which one editor repeatedly insists on something that without consensus for others). I believe Chinese-language editors are being looked for to deal with this issue. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Response to CaspianBlue and arbitrators

I do not believe this is a "nationalistic" feud. In fact, I have yet to be informed of tenmei's "issues", so to speak, with the article. What we had was a tag team of editors repeatedly deleting large sections of text with comments such as "Chauvinistic bullshit!", "Reverted vandalism" and the like, without explaining why. When these deletions are repeated without explanation, that is a form of vandalism.

I will reiterate, so far Tenmei has not yet presented a single problem, error, or bias in the article(and neither has any other editors) that was inserted by me. So far, the only concrete issue raised by Tenmei is the supposed "unreliablity" of the source, which could easily be solved by a third editor checking the source. Then again, Tenmei has repeatedly demonstrated he could care less about the opinions of others. He seems to be unable and unwilling to work constuctively with other editors, resorting to long-winded arguments that, frankly, shows his failure as a communicator and nothing else.

The IP editor, on the other hand, has engaged in some trolling and disruption(which has been reverted by me and other editors) but I believe that Tenmei's treatment incensed the IP editor and increased his determination to disrupt wikipedia through dubious practices such as crossing out his comments and deleting them. In any case, this is not a case for ArbComTeeninvestor (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Second Response to Tenmei

Provide us with your view! So far you have provided absolutely NOTHING concrete which we can analyze, besides hollow rhetoric. I supposedly deny "WP: BURDEN" and other policy, but other than unsupported ah hominem attacks, I have so far had nothing concrete from you. You have yet to back up your claims I deny WP: BURDEN, WP:RSUE, and others. If I deny WP:BURDEN, why are we discussing the use of editors to check the reliabilty of the source? As usual, your refusal to listen to others, along with your tentenious repetitions, have gotten us nowhere. Other editors, I believe, also share this sentiment.

This is an example of his working altitude:

"The following source may or may not be credible. I can't be bothered to try to figure it out, based on previous experience with dubious material offered by an anonymous "contributor" to this specific article. However, I do have the ability and willingness to determine that the dubious citations attributed to this Chinese language "history" are inconsistent with WP:V.

Li Bo, Zheng Yin, "5000 years of Chinese history", Inner Mongolian People's publishing corp , ISBN 7-204-04420-7, 2001. Accordingly, I have deleted all of it. This kind of anonymous "participation" is incompatible with Misplaced Pages's standards. --Tenmei (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)"

No consensus, no consultation, no discussion. That is his modus operantus.

Tenmei's history of disruption

Also, it seems this is not the first time Tenmei has demonstrated such behavior. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive471#User:Tenmei.27s_abusing_AfD_and_personal_attacks Compared to that incident, Tenmei demonstrated better behaviour, but I think this can show that Tenmei is indeed engaging in uncivil behaviour, as well as a GREAT Diffuculty communicating his ideas and working with other editors. It is not just me who thinks Tenmei has difficulty communicating and working with other editors, check the opinion of this editor on an uninvolved matter: "I think you are overreacting, because the fundamental problem with Tenmei is his inability to make himself understood, not civility issues. It is not my intention to mock you. The other blocks is less indicative than what I assumed when looking at your log, and as such is not really relevant to this discussion. Taemyr (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC) "

I find this discussion, in any case, redundant; adequate links have been given for any body who wants to verify the source, and it is not difficult to find a chinese-language editor who will accept the task of doing so(especially when the summary is already pasted onto the page). You gentlemen know the difficulty and effort exerted in making decisions in an arbitration case better than me; I don't think the arbitration comittee, as well as myself, deserves to be dragged into this by the obstinacy of one editor. I don't think ArbCom should reward his disruptive and vextatious behaviour by accepting his arbitration request.

Tenmei's attempt to construe this as a "nationalistic dispute" is laughable, especially considering the above section has clearly shown he edits with a heavy nationalistic bias, and agenda. This is a "dispute"(if it can be called that ) in which one editor vextatiously harassed others and violated WP:CONSENSUS. ArbCom should not reward this behaviour. Teeninvestor (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

We need to refocus the debate

Indeed it seems that Tenmei's behaviour is a bigger issue than the actual "dispute" at the article, which is as of now nonexistent. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive456#Personal_abuse_and_disruptive_behaviour_by_Tenmei http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive471#User:Tenmei.27s_abusing_AfD_and_personal_attacks Several incident files have been focussed on Tenmei, but to no avail. 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, which appeared to have reached a stable form.Teeninvestor (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by PericlesofAthens

What more needs to be said from my end? I feel that I have criticized User:Tenmei's actions enough at Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. If, as the arbitrator's opinion suggests, you are looking for an experienced editor who can clear up verifiability issues with the Li Bo and Zheng Yin source used by User:Teeninvestor, then perhaps I can be of some help. Frankly I've been busy with other things; otherwise, I would have taken the time to do a little research, as I still have access to a university library. However, I'm not going there today, so I don't see how I'll be of much immediate use. Bowing out.--Pericles of Athens 15:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Arilang1234

  1. I am here to support user Teeninvestor, because Teeninvestor is a keen content contributor, only need some editors to verify the source.
  2. User Tenmei seems to have a confused sense of logic and historical time line, because no nation in the world is going to make any serious claim of oil and gas field based on 2000 years old historical facts.
  3. I suggest user Tenmei to start his/or her own wikipedia, and make up own wiki rules. Arilang 13:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (8/3/0/5)

  • Comment. Please provide the archive link for the relevant request at the edit warring noticeboard. Have any of the content noticeboards, such as WP:RSN or WP:NORN, been tried? Have any other reports been filed on the administrative noticeboards, besides the edit warring report? Has anyone sought a third opinion or filed a request for comment? --Vassyana (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    Decline, for now. 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. I'd encourage the participants to make use of the content and conduct noticeboards as necessary and to seek out the input of one or more uninvolved Chinese-speaking editors. --Vassyana (talk) 05:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Some input from a Chinese-speaking administrator or experienced editor on the sourcing/verifiability and related issues might be helpful here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm going to second that request from an uninvolved Chinese-literate editor; it does appear that any case would revolve around the sources, and a good interpretation of them appears indispensable. — Coren  00:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
    Accept; Alleged misuse of sources is at the center of this case, and because of the added complication of the language of those sources it appears that ArbCom, with some help, is in the best position to help solve it. — Coren  13:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I have asked at the Arbitration Clerks' Noticeboard for one of the clerks to try to find a suitable wikiproject at which to post a request for assistance from an experienced editor/admin with respect to the interpretation/verifiability & sourcing issues. Risker (talk) 04:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: for what it's worth, User:Nlu might make a good person to take care of that, though I'm not sure whether or not he's involved. He'd be my go-to guy in this case though. As for the case, I'll say decline for now since it's basically a content dispute, though i coud be persuaded. Wizardman 18:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - this will take some time to review and understand (for me at least). Noting here that I'm aware of the request, but unable to fully review for a few days. Hopefully more statements will have been made by then by uninvolved users who may want to opine and explain what they see happening here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Default to Accept. There are issues here, and a more appropriate way forward hasnt presented itself. John Vandenberg 01:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you Caspian blue. Based on what you have indicated, I think Wikisource can be of assistance here as a scratch pad to record the sources and translations. Wikisource has an Author page for Li Po on English Wikisource and Chinese Wikisource. I have set up three transcription projects on Wikisource at s:Author:Li Bai#Transcription projects, and I have created a bibliography page for s:Author:Bo Yang. There are no limitations on the amount of detail that can be recorded on Wikisource Author pages.
    It would be helpful if the original Chinese sources are archived onto Chinese Wikisource if they are public domain, as all Li Bai works are, and any English translations identified. If the English translations are public domain, they should also be archived onto English Wikisource, or if no public domain translation is available, a collaborative translation can be created on English Wikisource.
    John Vandenberg 00:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I see that we are stuck here. Has any Chinese-speaking editor who would help been found? Do the parties agree with that step? I read user:PericlesofAthens said they would take care of that but—since they are a named party of the dispute—do the parties agree with them helping in that direction? -- FayssalF - 20:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Abstain for now, per my colleagues. There is clearly a problem but there are better avenues for resolution, which appear unexplored.  Roger Davies 06:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Accept. 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. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Accept. Kirill  05:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Accept. per FloNight and Fayssal above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Accept by Rlevse per this diff.
  • Decline. The parties don't present this as a behavioral problem, and I'm don't think we have a clear idea about what we hope to accomplish with arbitration. I recommend a community ban on all incarnations of the sock; based on the statements, I don't even think it would be controversial. The rest seems to be a linguistic question that we're ill-equipped to answer. I suggest that parties agree to the opinions of uninvolved editors at noticeboards. If they do not, come back for a topic ban, which we can pass by motion. Cool Hand Luke 15:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I find myself with conflicting opinions on this request. The dispute certainly rises to a level of entrenchedness and seriousness which would justify accepting a case. However it is also a highly specialised dispute affecting a very small section of the project, and I am not yet certain that all other attempts at dispute resolution have failed (it does not seem to me that the failure of one party to accept mediation inescapably amounts to a failure of mediation). I disagree with Caspian Blue that the intervention of trolling sockpuppets makes other kinds of resolution impossible. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Principles

Purpose of Misplaced Pages

1) The purpose of Misplaced Pages is to create a high-quality free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of cameraderie and mutual respect among editors.

Passed 10 to 0, 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Editor behavior and decorum

2) Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Unseemly conduct from all sides of a dispute, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, and disruptive point-making, is prohibited.

Passed 10 to 0, 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Reliability and verifiability of sources

3) Because Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, the reliability and accuracy of our content is extremely important. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, a policy, requires that article content that is challenged or is likely to be challenged must be attributed to a published reliable source supporting the information presented.

Passed 10 to 0, 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-English-language sources

4) Wherever possible, English-language sources are preferable to sources in other languages so that English-speaking readers can readily verify the content of the article and, if desired, can consult the source for more information. However, sources in other languages are acceptable where an English equivalent is not available. Where editors translate a direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. There is no requirement that a translation of the source be required in other circumstances, although courtesy and good practice suggest that if a genuine concern arises concerning the content or reliability of the foreign-language source, providing a translation or paraphrase of the relevant portion of its content will help address the concern.

Passed 10 to 0, 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee

5) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Passed 10 to 0, 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Communication

6) Editors should use their best efforts to communicate with one another, particular when disputes arise. When an editor's input is consistently unclear or difficult to follow, the merits of his or her position may not be fully understood by those reading the communication. An editor's failure to communicate concerns with sufficient clarity, conciseness and succinctness, or with insufficient attention to detail, or failure to focus on the topic being discussed, can impede both collaborative editing and dispute resolution. Editors should recognise when this is the case and take steps to address the problems, either on their own or, where necessary, by seeking assistance.

Passed 10 to 0, 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Feuds and quarrels

7) 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 extreme cases, they may be directed to do so.

Passed 10 to 0, 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Conduct on arbitration pages

8) The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in arbitration as in all other areas of Misplaced Pages.

Passed 10 to 0, 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Disengaging

9) Disengaging from a topic area and walking away due to a dispute can sometimes be the right decision. Unresolved content issues can be handled by other editors and this does not require the original parties to remain engaged with the issues. Conduct issues arising from the dispute may still need to be examined, in general terms related to other conduct, as well as specific conduct in the content dispute.

Passed 10 to 0, 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The community has a forward-looking approach to interpersonal disputes

10) Editors are strongly encouraged - and often expected - to set aside past interpersonal disputes or find ways to move beyond them, and to choose their present Misplaced Pages conduct in a way which exemplifies this. Users who fail to do so may themselves give rise to disruption.

Passed 10 to 0, 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1.1) This case originated with a dispute primarily between Tenmei (talk · contribs) and Teeninvestor (talk · contribs) concerning the validity and reliability of sources on Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. Both Tenmei and Teeninvestor are experienced editors who have made substantial content contributions to Misplaced Pages. The dispute in the case has expanded to include other users that contributed evidence and comments during the case.

Passed 10 to 0, 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Tenmei and Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty

2) Tenmei disputed the reliability of certain sources used by Teeninvestor on Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty. Although some of the concerns raised by Tenmei may or may not be valid—a content issue we do not address—Tenmei's manner and style of raising them has made it difficult to understand the precise nature of his concerns. For example, several editors understood Tenmei to be objecting to the use of a source primarily because it is available only in Chinese and a translation was not provided, but on the workshop in this case, Tenmei has stated that this was not the substance of his objection. Additionally, Tenmei also once proposed to merge Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty into the unrelated mainspace article Salting the earth, perhaps in a faulty attempt to assert that Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty should be deleted and salted.

Passed 10 to 0, 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Tenmei and dispute resolution

3) In the course of dispute resolution regarding Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty, Tenmei has engaged in instances of incivility and personal attacks, particularly toward Teeninvestor. More generally, 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.

Passed 9 to 0 with 1 abstention, 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Allegations pertaining to other parties

4) Since prior to the start of the case, the involved parties have raised allegations of impropriety pertaining to each other in multiple forums all across Misplaced Pages. While participation in the case is welcome in the form of providing evidence and commenting on the ruling, excessive and repetitive remarks both on the case pages and in other venues was unproductive for dispute resolution. , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . , , , , , , , , , , , . (Also see all case pages).

Passed 10 to 0, 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Tenmei restricted

1.1) Tenmei is restricted as follows:

(A) Tenmei is topic-banned from Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty for a period of six months. He is permitted to comment on the talkpage, so long as he does so in a civil fashion.
(B) Tenmei is instructed not to interact with or comment with regard to Teeninvestor 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).
Passed 10 to 0, 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Tenmei mentored

2.1) Tenmei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shall be assigned one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.

Passed 10 to 0, 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Editors advised

3) 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. This particularly applies to editors whose native language may not be English.

Passed 8 to 2, 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolution of content dispute

4) Editors not previously involved in Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty and any other articles involved in the original content dispute are invited to give attention to any remaining issues concerning the article, including the reliability of sources used in it. Participation from editors fluent in the Chinese language may be especially helpful.

Passed 9 to 0 with 1 abstention, 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Continuing jurisdiction

5) The Arbitration Committee retains jurisdiction over the subject-matter of this case, as it does in any case. Should the preceding remedies fail to improve the situation described in this decision, after a reasonable time, an application may be made to reopen the case and impose other remedies as may be necessary.

Passed 6 to 0 with 4 abstentions, 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Parties are instructed and warned

6.1) The parties are instructed to carefully review the principles and findings contained in this decision. Each of the parties is strongly urged to conform his or her future behavior to the principles set forth in this decision. Each of the parties is warned for engaging in the problematic user conduct described above, and is instructed to avoid any further instances of such conduct.

Passed 9 to 1, 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Editors counseled to step away temporarily

7) Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic are counseled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area. Sometimes, editors in this position may best devote some of their knowledge, interest, and effort to creating or editing other articles that may relate to the same broad subject-matter as the dispute, but are less immediately contentious.

Passed 9 to 1, 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should any editor subject to a restriction under this decision violate that restriction, he may be blocked for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator. All blocks shall be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 10 to 0, 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

Category: