Case clerk: AlexandrDmitri ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: John Vandenberg ( Talk) & Newyorkbrad ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
This is neither a motion nor a request as currently formulated. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
1) Even though the concept of "unbiased enforcement" is quite subjective, it is still something important to keep in mind for all parties involved (especially for those with administrative authority). A main frustration I have is that there are highly involved authority figures who have consistently imposed their judgement on others in a highly selective manner. It's fine if everyone who jaywalks gets criticized, but it's discrimination if a few out of all substantial offenders are consistently selected for criticism. In our context, some people even went further than this. Namely, they would game the system to prevent certain parties from being sanctioned or simply refuse to scrutinize other parties' behaviours by summoning various excuses. In a practical perspective, these types of actions undermines the moral authority of people who engage biased enforcement of standards and render them less likely to be trusted by parties whom they exerted unjustified biases against. This can in turn contribute to factionalism and a loss of cooperative spirit. -- Bobthefish2 ( talk) 23:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
|
2) As stated in my evidence part and this response, I was mistakenly blocked for 24 hours on July 22, 2011 [1]. Elen of the Roads once analysed this case and clearly expressed her opinion that this blocking was a mistake [2]. I was actually a victim of an unbalanced enforcement of rules or a kind of improper conduct that eventually ruined effort preventing edit-warring in editing that page. Elen told me [3] that refactoring block logs unfortunately is almost unfeasible and suggested me save the diff or link of the discussion and her opinion. Here I wonder if it is possible by this chance, as my request, that Arbitration Committee can correct this mistake in any more formal format. Thank you in advance! -- Lvhis ( talk) 17:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Withdrawn by requester. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I'm currently travelling in remote areas in South East Asia where Internet connection is hard to find so I need more time to respond. Please give me about 2 weeks.
STSC (
talk)
07:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
|
This article should be also included on the case. STSC ( talk) 00:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I thought the clerk was very kind to let us go beyond 500 words in our evidence, I'm getting a little disturbed by the ever increasing amount of "Evidence" (i.e., difs, more examples, etc.), including that described as "analysis of evidence...are we really supposed to be using this space to just list more and more complaints about each other? I've intentionally tried not to engage in too much back and forth, though I admit being unable to fully resist, but with more and more "data" coming in from some editors, I feel like I should be out scouring for more evidence... Or maybe a better question is, what really do you want us (the parties) to be doing now? I know we're waiting for one Magog the Ogre's evidence; I think a few of the editors are considering making proposals...but what would be most constructive for us? Or is it time for all us (the involved parties) to just wait for questions, etc. (save for those who haven't finished as just mentioned). Qwyrxian ( talk) 11:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
So, we started with evidence, then came the "commenting on evidence" and making proposals, now we're somewhere between commenting on "commenting on evidence" and commenting on counter-evidence presented in response to arguments against certain proposals.... Couldn't we just stop? Why are we just arguing amongst ourselves? Arbcom has the evidence. They have our proposals. Couldn't we maybe, you know, let them arbitrate? I'm so tired of all of this...of having to dissect/read dissection of every statement and counter-statement and losing track of the big picture. Maybe I can phrase this directly to ArbCom: is there anything more you want from us? Is there anything you want clarified? Is what we are doing now beneficial to you all? Qwyrxian ( talk) 05:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Please read what Newyorkbrad, one of the drafting arbitrators, says above. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Stop Oda Mari using Twinkle
Oda Mari has been abusing the use of Twinkle; she must be stopped.
STSC (
talk)
01:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
See below: proposed ban.
STSC (
talk)
17:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
2)
3)
4)
In the context created by the evidence presented thus far, the differences and distinctions between Forest management and Arboriculture suggest arguable useful patterns, e.g.,
IMO, the evidence only addresses what to do now, today. What next?
IMO, more difficult questions have to do with what could have been done or should have been done differently in the past?
IMO, more constructive questions have to do with making guesses about how to address similar uncertainties, problems, stumbling blocks, etc. which are likely to arise in the future? -- Tenmei ( talk) 18:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you know the idiomatic expression "can't see the forest for the trees"? Would you agree that your evidence here is generalist and reductive? Are you willing to tweak your evidence in response to questioning? If so, can you see how it may help ArbCom to revisit your evidence with a wider perspective? On the basis of lessons learned the hard way, what could have averted this ArbCom case? what about the future? -- Tenmei ( talk) 18:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you know the idiomatic express "can't see the forest for the trees"? In your initial analysis of issues in this case, you suggested here that "some rules/guidelines for conduct and censure of the bad apples from Arbcom would be quite helpful". Are you willing to tweak your comment in response to questioning? If so, can you see how it may help ArbCom to revisit your suggestions with a wider perspective? On the basis of lessons learned the hard way, what could have averted this ArbCom case? what about the future? -- Tenmei ( talk) 19:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you know the idiomatic express "can't see the forest for the trees"? In your initial analysis of issues in this case, you observed here that you have been "baffled by some discussions" and "disheartened by the lack of ability to agree on almost anything". You also suggest that "[s]ometimes prevention is better than cure". Are you willing to tweak your comment in response to questioning? If so, can you see how it may help ArbCom to revisit your impressions with a wider perspective? On the basis of lessons learned the hard way, what could have averted this ArbCom case? what about the future? -- Tenmei ( talk) 19:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I always understood this to be a unifying theme in your cumulative diffs -- trying to prevent things from getting out of hand, trying to ameliorate, to mitigate the effects of a strategic jabs and pokes and hits which unfolded across months. I perceived your edits as tactical, but your words were informed by analysis which was a little different than mine.
When you and I felt "baffled" and "disheartened", the sense of puzzlement was the effect intended by someone else. Time after time, your responses were arguably constructive; but perhaps something could have been better in one or more instances. I don't know.
Am I alone in wanting ArbCom to help us address difficult-to-formulate questions about what you or I or we could have done differently at each step of the way, e.g.,
Do you anticipate encountering variant dilemmas in the coming months and years? Is it inevitable that we will always respond ineffectively? For example, your moderate diffs at Talk:Senkaku Islands #Edit warring were marginalized -- twisted by Bobthefish2 and thwarted by Qwyrxian. If you had written nothing, your silence and mine would have encouraged more of the gambit which needed to be discouraged. What you did write didn't work out well. My endorsement didn't help. In retrospect, this was one of the pivotal incidents which illustrate "sometimes prevention is better than cure."
In contrast, Qwyrxian's perception of "both sides pretty much entrenched and non-collaborative" and Mercutio's "plague o' both your houses!" becomes the self-fulfilling prophesy which overwhelms all else.-- Tenmei ( talk) 15:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
In response to SirFozzie's diff here, David Fuchs' diff here, Jclemens' diff here, Coren's diff here please consider this:
Does this help you (and the rest of us) in coming to grips with the marriage of conduct-related and content-related issues?
Is this premise (or this question) distinguishable from trying to teach fish how to swim ( 班门弄斧) and talking past each other ( 鸡同鸭讲 or 雞同鴨講)? -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Why or how were the diffs of Bobthefhish2 so effective for so long?
What explains the demonstrated and recurring ability to influence our talk page threads? -- Tenmei ( talk) 19:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
|
|
|
The bottom line question is this: What is this case about? -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
|
|
|
The bottom line question is this: What is this case about? -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create and maintain a high-quality encyclopedia using a process of collaborative editing
2) The credibility and accuracy of our content is extremely important. Our policy of verifiability requires that article content which is challenged or is likely to be challenged must be attributable to a reliable source supporting the information presented.
3) Wikipedia's shared vocabulary of terms are essential for dispute resolution; and this expressly encompasses the community-endorsed pyramid graphic at Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution.
File:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement1.svg The pyramid graphic posted at WP:DR is the only image on the page. This is the specific wording of the pyramid graphic which was identified by Qwyrxian as an "unhelpful image" here. The graphic emphasizes a few terms:
- Refuting the Central Point → refutes the central point
- Refutation → finds the mistake and explains why its mistaken using quotes
- Counterargument → contradicts and then backs it up with reasoning and/or supporting evidence
- Contradiction → states the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence
- Responding to Tone → criticizes the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument
- Ad Hominem → attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument
- Name calling → sounds something like, "You are an ass hat."
At WP:DR, the image caption is an hortatory command: "Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid."
As a consequence of Qwyrxian's encouragment and support, others like Bobthefish2, STSC and Lvhis pursued strategies based on contradiction and ad hominem arguments.
As a consequence of Qwyrxian's encouragement and support, others like Bobthefish2, STSC and Lvhis pursued strategies based on marginalization of refutation and counterargument.
1) This case is a direct consequence of ArbCom's past failures to act.
2) Instances of "gaming the system" highlight flaws which are susceptible to amelioration, mitigation, repair.
@Jclemens -- Does this restatement help establish a context for addressing the problems "that MedCom defers and throws our way"?
@Coren -- Do these otherwise unstated presumptions help us move towards the "consensus [which] could be reached if everyone behaved and where Arbcom could help by making sure everybody does"?
How can we begin to grasp that we're barking up the wrong tree when we contrive arguably reasonable pigeonholes and a false dilemma at the same time. We all make these kinds of mistakes from time to time, but the character of small misjudgments are changed when they are re-formatted as accusations.
Like Bobthefish2 in a range of contexts, whose pattern of thinking Qwyrxian mirrors here, the focused complaint anticipates a binary response -- yes/no, guilty/innocent, culpable/non-culpable, etc. One constructive response is to step back; and on further consideration, perhaps the premises of the proposition need to be tweaked?
WP:Arguing about arguing -- The diff of Bobthefish2
above is emblematic characteristic of a tactic which has been effective in other Senkaku Islands contexts. See also
Arguing about arguing in my proposed remedies. --
Tenmei (
talk)
17:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
These are not all my words, but I propose them as if they were my own. -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
1) ArbCom acknowledges that real-world factions that vie for control over articles, turning them into polemical battlegrounds where surface civility is used to cover bias, tendentiousness and even harassment.
In this ArbCom context, your task is to parse the available data to distinguish between a dispute which is primarily about water and rocks and something else which has water and rocks as significant elements. Do you see the difference? Are your words opening a door or shutting out something unforseen? --
Tenmei (
talk)
19:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
2) ArbCom acknowledges the problem of "polite disruption" by those who misuse our rules and policies as weapons.
In this specific case, I paraphrase the words of Phoenix7777 here as if they were my own, e.g.,
I adopt the words of Kanguole as if they were my own: "We should not be campaigning to change common usage, or be more 'correct' than our sources".
3) ArbCom acknowledges that long-term warriors are toxic, not "vested" contributors.
For example, part of our problem in Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute is that Qwyrxian was a tango dance partner. There were mis-steps; and there were unforeseen consequences which ensued.
ArbCom has a constructive role to play in acknowledging Qwyrxian's tango, his mis-steps and the unintended consequences of mis-steps. These are part of the several Gordian knots which toxic participants have created.
Qwyrxian is here to build an encyclopedia, and mis-steps are not unexpected. In this context, I worry that a diff posted by Qwyrxian will be overlooked:
Characterising others as " pretty much entrenched and non-collaborative" is a self-fulfilling prophesy -- see also "Bad apples", "Prevention is better than cure", and "What is this case all about?" below. -- Tenmei ( talk) 14:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
4) ArbCom acknowledges the "content" and "conduct" are sometimes married, not divorced informed by the related concepts of
Information asymmetry (
ja:情報の非対称性) and
Moral hazard (
zh:道德风险); and this means
less timidity in addressing issues related to content including POV warring, tag teams, academic dishonesty, etc.
5) ArbCom acknowledges that restraint in curtailing content disputes has unintended consequences. Wikipedia fails when academic integrity is not a priority, e.g., unlike "simple" incivility, the damage caused by editors misquoting, plagiarizing and editorializing affects the credibility of our encyclopedia.
6) ArbCom acknowledges that increased transparency in the dispute resolution process enhances the ability of the community to find ways to mitigate future problems before ArbCom is invited to intervene.
7) ArbCom acknowledges a burden to to explain decisions in better detail -- beyond a simple "aye/nay" -- and to expose ArbCom's reasoning and justification. This is necessary because the community benefits from understanding why ArbCom rules as it does.
8) ArbCom establishes discretionary sanctions, which can serve to impose the community's behavioral expectations on new editors.
9) ArbCom acknowledges and deprecates edits which are designed to "delegitimize" and delegitimization as a tactic.
According to the evidence adduced in this case, the individual and cumulative contributions of Bobthefish2 are notable. His ability to affect the development of our articles and talk pages is demonstrated. In the context Magog suggests, there are follow-up questions. A review of Bob's edit history is important if our project is to mitigate a repetition of similar tactics.
10) ArbCom acknowledges and deprecates edits which are "arguing about arguing".
At least for now, I’m not going to write out a full proposal per the template below. I know that Arbcom has some standardized formats and wording that it uses for decisions of this type, but I'd have to actually search through prior decisions to identify the exact phrasings; I feel that current Arbcom members can do that better than I can. In other words, I trust Arbcom to find the proper context and justifications for whatever remedies are taken.
As for actual remedies, my proposal is quite simple:
"When I saw the POV tag, I asked myself "Who think it's biased?". North and South America, Europe, Africa, Middle East…most people are indifferent or don’t think it biased. My answer was Chinese, Taiwanese, Overseas Chinese, and CPOV supporters. I asked Penwhale the question. [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] Conclusion: Only Chinese and Taiwanese think Senkaku biased. Those who say the SI is a biased name are CPOV pushers, abusing NPOV policy. Additionally, when I saw this, I thought "Any name will do for them but the single use of Senkaku"."
In the "General discussion" section below, see Prevention is better than cure. -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Qwyrxian's proposal on topic ban. Plus, Lvhis should be indef. topic banned on Senkaku related articles. As I pointed out in my evidence, Lvhis has been concentrating on Senkaku related articles/talks too much.
User:Bobthefish2 is indefinitely communitysite/topic banned for at least a year.
User:Lvhis is indefinitely topic banned for at least a year.
User:STSC is indefinitely topic banned for at least a year. Although he's been in WP for years, he still doesn't understand what is incivility. [19]
outdated
|
---|
This is outdated. I will propose something different in the near future. -- Bobthefish2 ( talk) 20:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC) |
It has come to my attention that several parties (i.e. Magog the Ogre, Oda Mari, and Tenmei) attempted to use these attributes to discredit other parties. While it may seem to be the norm for well-establish editors to devote themselves to a wide range of topics, it is important to note that many editors have a more casual interest in the project under normal circumstances (barring disputes such as this, where activity may spike).
Also, it is inappropriate to use a ratio of # of article edits vs. # of talk page edits, to evaluate the overall contribution of an editor. Both content management and content evaluation are vital aspects of a project.
Do not use ambiguous statistics of a user's contribution history to draw conclusions on his motives, credibility, and overall contributions to Wikipedia.
It is important to note that every major discussion that took place regarding Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute collapsed due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT of certain parties that are actively in favour of the current article names. Their directed accusations of incivility and battleground mentality committed by opposing parties are largely hypocritical and are distractive devices employed to selectively undermine opposing voices and to mask the true extent of their tendentious editing.
Before deciding on sanctions, bear in mind that incivility is a mere pretext of certain vested parties to advocate indefinite bans on their opponents.
Remove the administrative status of Magog the Ogre.
Remove the administrative status of Magog the Ogre.
The substantial reason for such hardly solvable dispute finally bringing involved parties to here is mainly due to that the dispute is tightly related to an international territory dispute, as said " this is another example of an ethnic-national dispute of a type that gives rise to a great number of disputes on Wikipedia, including a significant portion of arbitration cases. ". As one of involved parties, here I just mainly propose some principles rather than merely assert which particular party or parties should be banned or admonished, which I believe Arbitrators can make their right decisions based on their experience and on their analysis of all evidence provided.
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopaedia, and this effort is best achieved based on its Five pillars. Core content policies for these Five pillars are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (:NPOV), Wikipedia:No original research (:NOR), and Wikipedia:Verifiability (:SOURCE). These core content policies should be re-emphasized for this Arbitration case as they are even more critical in solving the dispute on Wikipedia pages related to ethnic-national dispute. In terms of NPOV here, Wikipedia shall not be forced to take side when its pages involving international territory dispute. In terms of NOR and SOURCE, the use of Wikipedia for advocacy for one side of such international dispute with editors own original research or opinions from unreliable sources, is prohibited. Using original research is prohibited not only in editing the pages in question, but also in discussions about editing the pages because such original research has impeded and will impede reaching consensus on editing as well as collaborative editing. Such original research is usually POV or national POV as specifically for the pages in question.
2) The current case is very similar to the case Liancourt Rocks that has been an example in the guideline WP:NCGN#Multiple local names. To solve current dispute and reach consensus, all involved parties/editors, and future editors, should learn to compromise to avoid giving the impression of support for a particular national POV. It is important to apply Wikipedia's NPOV policy and relative guideline with consistency on similar articles. Otherwise, dispute will keep occurring not only on the pages of the current arbitration case bur also on the other page. The reputation and credibility of Wikipedia will be damaged.
I agree that NPOV should be applied on all pages. I do not believe that this means that the result on all pages will be the same. For example, Sea of Japan is never going to move to some sort of theoretical "neutral" name just because Korea happens to argue that the name is biased. To apply NPOV, we must consider what is actually the English name. That's why we use the term Boston massacre, even though the term is obviously "not neutral". Now, is "Senkaku Islands" the correct, neutral name for this article? I think so, but I'm not sure, and I feel that part of the reason we can't figure it out is because disruptive editing is preventing collegial discussions. Thus, the need for this RfAr--first we fix the behavioral problems, then we get back to the content issues. Qwyrxian ( talk) 10:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
3) The problem of some editors sometimes did not behave in line with WP:CIVIL has occurred in most, if not every, of cases submitted for Arbitration. My proposal about this is nothing new and is very simple: we just follow what the policy WP:CIVIL has stated.
4) Users with administrative authority for managing such hot pages should restrictively obey the policy WP:SYSOP, of which " Expectations of adminship" should be more emphasized. As stated in " Care and judgement" of that policy and lessons in this case as raised in my evidence, unitary standard should be applied with fairness and consistency to enforce any sanctions to prevent edit-warring. This is the way that can keep such sanction effective, and also keep the administrative authority being real neutral. Those users authorized with adminship but have been involved in the dispute as regular users are still expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful manner as stated in the parts " Administrator conduct" and " Accountability" of that policy, including obeying the policies mentioned above Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and WP:CIVIL.
1) Involved parties violated Wikipedia important policies WP:NOR, WP:SOURCE, and WP:NPOV using Original Research to prevent consensus in discussion for editing a section of the page Senkaku Islands dispute, and potentially to prevent consensus in naming dispute, as opposing that NPOV policy and relative guideline should be applied on articles with consistency. [32] [33] -- Lvhis ( talk) 00:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
2) The substance of this case is more similar to that of Liancourt Rocks Case.
3) {{ POV-title}} tag was ever removed for several occasions by involved parties when discussion was still ongoing and dispute was not yet resolved. [37]
4) Involved parties sometimes did not behave in line with WP:CIVIL.
5) Some involved party with Administrative authority has violated Wikipedia policy " Care and judgement" and " Accountability" of WP:SYSOP when using such authority to manage the page in question [38] [39]. Some involved party with Administrative authority not directly using this authority and only being involved in the pages in question as regular user/editor has violated Wikipedia policy Administrator conduct besides violated Wikipedia policies WP:NOR, WP:SOURCE, and WP:NPOV as raised in "Proposed findings of fact 4.5.2.1" above [40] [41] [42] [43].
6) An involved party played a pronounced negative role in edit and discussion of the pages in question.
As in evidence raised from most of involved parties, this party is user Tenmei [47] [48] [49] [50], whose repeatedly deliberate violation of a sanction set up by admin was the blasting fuse of exposing the admin's defect and dragging the case to the Arbitration [51] [52]. -- Lvhis ( talk) 00:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
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.
1) User Qwyrxian and User Oda Mari are banned for a period of one year from Senkaku Islands topics, broadly defined, and may appeal this decision to the committee no earlier than one year from the time sanctions are imposed. The justification for this proposed remedy is as stated in " Proposed findings of fact 4.5.2.1".
2) Parties who were proved having violated "proposed principle 4.5.1.3" are admonished for incivility. If any such incivility reoccurs from now on, the perpetrating party or parties will be banned for a period of 6 months from Senkaku Islands topics, broadly defined, and may appeal this decision to the committee no earlier than 6 months from the time sanctions are imposed.
3) User Tenmei is banned for a period of one year from Senkaku Islands topics, broadly defined, and may appeal this decision to the committee no earlier than one year from the time sanctions are imposed. The justification for this proposed remedy is as stated in " Proposed findings of fact 4.5.2.6".
4) User Qwyrxian is desysopped due to violation of "proposed principle 4.5.1.4", "proposed princeple 4.5.1.1", and "proposed princeple 4.5.1.2". The justification for this proposed remedy is as stated in " Proposed findings of fact 4.5.2.5" and " Proposed findings of fact 4.5.2.1".
5) Due to violation of " proposed principle 4.5.1.4", the administrative authority of User Magog_the_Ogre is banned for a period of one year from Senkaku Islands topics, broadly defined, and may appeal this decision to the committee no earlier than one year from the time sanction are imposed. The privilege of regular user/editor for the topics in question for User Magog_the_Ogre is not banned. The administrative authority of User Magog_the_Ogre for Wikipedia topics other than the topics in question here is not affected. The justification for this proposed remedy is as stated in " Proposed findings of fact 4.5.2.5".
1) Per " Proposed principle 4.5.1.2", the topic of Senkaku Islands, broadly defined, is placed under discretionary sanctions, like what for the precedent Liancourt Rocks case. Similar to "Liancourt Rocks case" as justified in " Proposed findings of fact 4.5.2.2", consensus should be forced to reach among involved parties upon the " proposed principle 4.5.1.1" and "proposed principle 4.5.1.2" as the final step for Dispute Resolution for this case.
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) Wikipedia must not let any editor use this arbitration process to silent other editors (namely STSC, Bobthefish2 and Lvhis) who honestly try to maintain neutrality in the articles which have been unbalanced and biased.
Moved to case talkpage by clerk. Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 14:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
The mentality and behaviour of the administrators should be thoroughly examined for their suitability as administrator in the community. This is to prevent any likelihood of disputes with the editors in the future. STSC ( talk) 00:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
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.
1) Qwyrxian's statement, "Even though STSC disputes my interpretation, I still believe this statement ("the title with the Japanese name is never NPOV as long as Japan is one of the participants in the territorial dispute") implies he will never accept the name Senkaku, no matter how many times consensus favors it; this refusal to accept consensus is antithetical to collaborative editing."
It is absolutely ridiculous by any standard. Does he think he is God deciding everything according to his "interpretation"? He is just violating other people's mind. Wikipedia cannot have someone with this kind of extreme egocentric mentality to be a fair administrator.
I just wanted to add one small thing here, then I'm probably done with all of this evidence, counter-evidence, proposals, etc. until outside members start getting involved. While Feezo really isn't allowed to comment here in detail because of the privileged nature of mediation and his role in that mediation, I think it is worth pointing out his support vote on my RfA which says: "I.... was consistently impressed by [Qwyrxian's] patience, evenhandedness, writing skills, and desire to reach genuine consensus during a period of intense cultural conflict. He was in many ways almost a co-mediator, and I heartily endorse him for adminship." I believe that that speaks fairly strongly for my conduct on these pages. Qwyrxian ( talk) 00:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
2) Her contributions record has shown that she has been trigger-happy with the Twinkle and she repeatedly used TW to revert good-faith edits in the articles without a valid reason.
3) She obviously has very little interest in actually editing the English articles apart from just reverting any edit which is not to her liking. STSC ( talk) 17:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
4) These clean-up tags should be in place to invite new inputs from other editors.
5) The cooling-off period should continue until the dispute of the articles' title is resolved.
6) I once described Tenmei's style of writing like a badly-programmed humanoid. Wikipedia is certainly not a platform for someone who likes to show off the art of obscurity. A total ban would make Tenmei appreciate the editing privileges and hopefully reform himself/herself.
1) Any enforcement action should only be carried out by administrators who are not involved in this case.
1) {text of Proposed principle}
1) Tenmei's pattern of speech has been disruptive.
2) Bobthefish2 has engaged in a pattern of trolling in order to gain a hand up in the dispute. His edits have been primarily geared toward trolling.
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.
1) User:Bobthefish2 is indefintiely banned, and may appeal this decision to the committee no earlier than one year from the time sanctions are imposed.
2) User:Bobthefish2 is banned for a period of one year.
3) User:Bobthefish2 is indefinitely topic banned from articles relating to Senkaku Islands, broadly defined, and may appeal this decision to the committee no earlier than one year from the time sanctions are imposed.
4) User:Lvhis is banned for a period of one year from articles relating to Senkaku Islands, broadly defined, and may appeal this decision to the committee no earlier than six month from the time sanctions are imposed.
The check-off list at WP:Not being here to build an encyclopedia helps us to recognize the edit history of Lvhis for what it is. -- Tenmei ( talk) 15:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
5) User:Lvhis is indefinitely placed on 1RR/week restriction for articles relating to Senkaku Islands, broadly defined, and may appeal this decision to the committee no earlier than one year from the time sanctions are imposed.
6) User:Tenmei is indefinitely topic banned from articles relating to Senkaku Islands, broadly defined, and may appeal this decision to the committee no earlier than one year from the time sanctions are imposed.
Yes, my participation has been under-appreciated, marginalized and partly misunderstood; but it is also proven that tit-for-tat edits fared less well in threads muddied with "delegitimization as a tactic" and other tactical goals -- compare thread (29-30 Jan 2011); diff (30 Jan 2011); compare subsequent review (31 Aug 2011); see also diff (9 June 2011).
Rather than a judgmental adjective like "coherent", perhaps a better way to characterize my edits is with the phrase "above the fray" or "under the radar" or "focused on underlying issues". In other words, is it possible that Magog's cursory glance simply didn't capture that I was steadfast in keeping my "eyes on the prize", e.g.,
File:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement1.svg The pyramid graphic posted at WP:DR is the only image on the page. This is the specific wording of the pyramid graphic which was identified by Qwyrxian as an "unhelpful image" here. The graphic emphasizes a few terms:
- Refuting the Central Point → refutes the central point
- Refutation → finds the mistake and explains why its mistaken using quotes
- Counterargument → contradicts and then backs it up with reasoning and/or supporting evidence
- Contradiction → states the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence
- Responding to Tone → criticizes the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument
- Ad Hominem → attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument
- Name calling → sounds something like, "You are an ass hat."
At WP:DR, the image caption is an hortatory command: "Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid."
7) User:Tenmei is topic banned for a period of one year from articles relating to Senkaku Islands, broadly defined, and may appeal this decision to the committee no earlier than one year from the time sanctions are imposed.
8) User:Tenmei is indefinitely placed on 1RR/week restriction for articles relating to Senkaku Islands, broadly defined, and may appeal this decision to the committee no earlier than one year from the time sanctions are imposed.
9) User:Lvhis is warned about edit warring.
10) User:Phoenix7777 is warned about edit warring.
11) User:John Smith's is warned about edit warring.
12) User:Oda Mari is cautioned about edit warring.
Is it not reasonable to project A similar process unfolds in advance of each edit in a controversial subject like
Senkaku Islands and
Senkaku Islands dispute.
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
I saw that Qwyrxian commented in his evidence [62] that I have a willingness to game the system (xe advocated getting the page locked so that people give up and leave.
I would like to point out that this event occurred during a time when there was a lot of disruptive editing and edit-wars going on, which was also considered to be a major problem by Qwyrxian himself back then [63]:
heck, I even find the comments of some of the editors on what (Bob perceives as) "our side" to be frustrating. It's a difficult environment to work in when even changes of 2 or 3 words are argued over ad nauseum -- Qwyrxian
In #1 of this section, I showed that the pages were locked by the administrator known as User:Nihonjoe partly in response to on-going edit-wars. Since I did not participate or incite the edit-wars, I am not certain how I could be accused of gaming the system.
However, two parties responsible for the aforementioned edit-wars did in fact erroneously accuse me of allegedly planning an edit-war (see Diff-set #1 in this diff section). Since then, one of them (Tenmei) has seen fit to consider every action I take as some sort of sinister conspiracy (see #2 of "Newsletters". Some examples of such McCarthyism can be seen in these ArbCom pages ( [64] [65]). -- Bobthefish2 ( talk) 02:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Numerous parties (namely Qwyrxian, Magog the Ogre, and Oda Mari) accused me of Battleground, CANVASS, and/or Tag-teaming in their evidence (see their evidence).
I would start off by showing this diff from my evidence [66]:
I'm not talking about the current problem. I'm talking that every single little change causes either an edit war, a near edit war, or such a massive, overwhelming talk page discussion with both sides pretty much entrenched and non-collaborative. This particular point is just an example. If we don't go into mediation, I can discuss the solution to this particular point, but I don't think anyone is going to like it, and I don't think the current tone on this page is going to allow for a serious consideration of it -- Qwyrxian, written on Feb 4, 2011
This quote by Qwyrxian himself (long ago) suggested that BATTLEGROUND is a systemic problem harboured by many parties. This serves to contradict the tone of his evidence, which subtly presents this as a an isolated problem that is attributed to only myself and STSC. To further support this contradiction, I'd refer the audience to the list of examples in my evidence where I showed how others parties had taken the initiative to provoke a battleground setting (Section Link).
I will end this section with a reminder the act of holding a selected few individuals responsible for a systemic problem caused by many parties can in itself be considered as an act backed by a battleground mentality, especially if:
Next, there's Oda Mari's allegation of CANVASS [67]. The examples she quoted with a time stamp of October 2010 is ridiculous, because I only joined WP on September 2010. Also interestingly, nobody warned me of it until this ArbCom case.
The other "canvassing" example dated to Summber 2011 [68] is also ridiculous because the matter of concern deals with Chinese linguistics. If the audience follows the second link of the quoted post, it'd lead back to a discussion in WP_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names), which one may observe that I had made several statements of regarding an intent to inviting Project China and zh:WP over for commentary (and which nobody replied to). -- Bobthefish2 ( talk) 21:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Oda Mari considers my collaboration with STSC and Lvhis to be tag-teaming, but does not consider the "newletters" Tenmei regularly sends to John Smiths, Oda Mari, and Phoenix7777. In this very page, we can also see some form of tag-teaming going on between John Smiths, Oda Mai, and Tenemi in seeing how the former two selectively offered exceedingly generous leniency to the latter but yet advocating ridiculous motions against others [69] [70].
Lvhis [71] (see "Improper conduct with double standards and gaming the system ruined efforts preventing edit-warring") and I [72] (see "Magog_the_Ogre") raised the issue of possible misconduct on the part of two admins (specifically, Magog the Ogre and Qwyrxian). The context of this matter lies on the fact that he blocked Lvhis over a BRD interruption while exempting Tenmei from the same sanctions. The following are notable red flags associated with this ordeal:
It's possible that I am wrong and that the admins I raised questions about handle matters in a completely fair manner way that I somehow cannot comprehend. But in the event that I am actually correct, then it may be practical to consider whether or not flawed leadership of authority figures are, in fact, very important contributors to the overall problem (in Qwyrxian's case, it'd stretch back to the time before he became an admin).
With everything said, I would like to conclude this remark with the presentation of a classic Chinese idiom "上梁不正下梁歪" [76], which has the following meaning:
"When the higher-ups (or parents) do not set a good example, the subordinates (or children) cannot be expected to behave well."
Fine.
In other words, Tenemi's last edit in this sequence is the start of a new BRD cycle. If we follow your logic, it would be impossible for Tenmei to ever edit the article again, until someone else edited the article. That is not now nor has it ever been how BRD works. That interpretation would mean you could use BRD to lock out other editors--the first person to start a BRD cycle would essentially always get to start all of the following, particularly for situations where there are only a small number of editors. Tenmei's edit was 3 days later, and clearly a bold attempt to try to break the stalemate on the section by offering a different solution to the phrasing in the lead. Of course, I reverted Tenmei very shortly thereafter, because his edit was terribly biased, but that still doesn't make it a BRD violation (although, as Elen of the Roads correctly pointed out, BRD was the wrong tool and isn't really meant to be something one can "violate"). Lvhis was blocked earlier (July 22) because Lvhis made a bold edit (fine), it was reverted about 12 hours later (fine), and, only 5 hours after the revert, re-inserted nearly the same text that xe had made earlier that day (not fine). There is a radical difference between their actions. Note, as I said before, that I do think Tenmei's edits on August 12 deserved a block, because they were definitely re-inserting a non-consensus version, when he was allegedly on a break from the articles. I even asked Magog to block Tenmei for it. That xe chose not to is, in my opinion, a mistake, but not abuse of administrative power. Qwyrxian ( talk) 13:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Since Feezo was our mediator, it requires a full disclosure of the content within the mediation to address my dispute with him. If the ArbCom would like to get into that, I will defend my actions according to the inaccessible materials. Otherwise, there is only one piece of non-censored exchange between Feezo and I, which is listed as evidence by multiple parties (here are some links from their evidence sections [86] [87]).
The parties that raised a red-flag about my behaviour in that thread neglected to mention that Feezo was the instigator of that loaded exchange and had taken the initiative to bait on multiple occasions. The original message I wrote to him was simply a heads-up about the amount of controversy he caused in inappropriately removing a POV tag, which resulted in a full blown ANI against Penwhale (see Point #2 in this section). His first response was a passive aggressive comment and later posts were personal attacks (that Qwyrxian and Magog the Ogre conveniently did not describe in their evidence).
The following comment of mine (quoted by others) requires some addressing:
Yes, I do strongly recommend not to spend too much time in WP. While it may seem 1337 for a person to show off his 50k+ edits in contribution history, there are other things in life that can benefit more from such dedication. If you don't mind me asking, what's your training and what kind of job are you looking for? -- Bobthefish2
One last thing I would like to mention is that Feezo and I later had an e-mail exchange which appeared to have settled our personal differences. Unless he disputes this, I am going to leave it at that. -- Bobthefish2 ( talk) 03:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Magog's section about me [88], in general, is filled with petty and inaccurate complaints:
In short. Magog has shown an inability to behave maturely as an admin. When faced with legitimate criticisms of his actions as an admin, he did not strive for correcting the said mistakes. But instead, he attacked his critics, nit-picked their flaws, and then proposed [96] [97] some indefinite bans to get rid of them. This type of person is not suited to be an administrator in any respectable medium.
The dates of hyperlinks which Qwyrxian selected are these. -- Tenmei ( talk) 04:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The first sentence of Qwyrxian's "evidence" serves as my rebuttal:
Qwyrxian's complaints are over-reaching, and the remedies proposed are disproportionate in the context of the evidence presented. -- Tenmei ( talk) 21:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Hyperlinks which Bobthefish2 added to evidence on September 11 are these. -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The dates of hyperlinks which Magog selected are these. -- Tenmei ( talk) 05:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
This verb "delegitimize" and what Magog says it means are helpful in other contexts beyond the specifics of one instance:
I denied the false claim, and I offered specific support for that denial. What would have been the likely consequence of ignoring the very specific warning?
This dilemma was not of my own making; and in the awkward context, my response was seemly and proportionate Magog's warning effectively endorsed Bob's delegitimizing attack.
When Magog rejected my words, Magog was officially validating Bob's tactic.
My restatement used the words of others because sentences drafted by someone else are resistant to complaints that I write badly. The words in wikiquote are selected precisely because they are written in a comprehensible manner. It is hard to figure out how or why the substance of These re-used words were is also marginalized but it is not for lack of trying -- see also
"Analysis of Evidence presented by Qwyrxian" above.
An unexpected consequence of my research led to the discovery of an analysis which explains the arc of diffs posted by Bobthefish2 and San9696 and STSC and Lvhis:
In this bullet, the summation opinion is not evidence when Magog explain states, "In other words, Tenmei implies ...." This is a
factoid only. It is a questionable or spurious—unverified, incorrect, or fabricated—statement presented as a fact, but with no veracity.
It is also not evidence when Magog argue states "he ignores other editor's points". This is also only a
factoid. It is an example of unreliable information which is repeated so often that it becomes accepted as if it were a fact
In the User talk:Magog the OGre#Strategic fraud thread which Magog cites, my diffs show an active effort to try to understand and parse what others are writing -- see also User:Tenmei is banned indefinitely from Senkaku Islands topics above. -- Tenmei ( talk) 18:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Magog is correct that I withdrew from active participation in this subject for a short time. On talk pages of each active editor, I asked, "Is it possible that my contributions are somehow 'feeding' conflict?" I proposed, "One way to test the hypothesis is by simply stepping back for a while." This distancing gesture is inconsistent with the Magog's use of m:MPOV or WP:DIVA.
|
|
Magog's complaints are over-reaching, and the remedies proposed are disproportionate in the context of evidence presented. -- Tenmei ( talk) 15:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
ArbCom fails when it "can't see the forest for the trees". General discussion may help mitigate the ways our process falls short.
Magog argues that
"censure of the bad apples would be quite helpful." This is only tangential to our primary goal, which is ensuring the academic credibility of the articles in our
collaborative editing project. For example, "bad apples" are a side issue beside the point when Qwyrixian highlights the tension between "non-opinion" and "opinion", e.g.,
Rejecting "bad apples" is not the only function of ArbCom, nor will this help us to work out ways to avert similar difficulties.
In his initial analysis, John Smith's observed here that "[s]ometimes prevention is better than cure".
The diffs cited by others were selected for purposes which have been made explicit. In each perceived example of misconduct, the question becomes something to do with discovering a plausible antidote or anti-tactic which might have served to "re-frame" or "spin" something better?
It is crucial to emphasize the distinction between "behaving badly" and misjudgments or mis-steps. For example, like Oda Mari, I sometimes think that Qwyrxian is "trying to be fair too much, losing his own way" -- compare Qwyxian's willingness to "abandon WP:V just based on AGF". Among the notable causes of this ArbCom case were the best efforts of Qwyrxian as he tried to apply our rules and policies in a complex context, e.g.,
Unstated premises in the scope of arbitration need to be explicit. Some of the foreseeable consequences of some problems are mitigated by identifying them.
According to Elen of the roads, "A useful thing that the parties can do is help Arbcom with ... what it is that [WP:RfArb/Senkaku] is all about...."
A few questions seem practical and necessary:
Is it unreasonable to conclude that our investment in WP:RfArb/Senkaku fails if it only results in punitive remedies? -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Case clerk: AlexandrDmitri ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: John Vandenberg ( Talk) & Newyorkbrad ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
This is neither a motion nor a request as currently formulated. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
1) Even though the concept of "unbiased enforcement" is quite subjective, it is still something important to keep in mind for all parties involved (especially for those with administrative authority). A main frustration I have is that there are highly involved authority figures who have consistently imposed their judgement on others in a highly selective manner. It's fine if everyone who jaywalks gets criticized, but it's discrimination if a few out of all substantial offenders are consistently selected for criticism. In our context, some people even went further than this. Namely, they would game the system to prevent certain parties from being sanctioned or simply refuse to scrutinize other parties' behaviours by summoning various excuses. In a practical perspective, these types of actions undermines the moral authority of people who engage biased enforcement of standards and render them less likely to be trusted by parties whom they exerted unjustified biases against. This can in turn contribute to factionalism and a loss of cooperative spirit. -- Bobthefish2 ( talk) 23:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
|
2) As stated in my evidence part and this response, I was mistakenly blocked for 24 hours on July 22, 2011 [1]. Elen of the Roads once analysed this case and clearly expressed her opinion that this blocking was a mistake [2]. I was actually a victim of an unbalanced enforcement of rules or a kind of improper conduct that eventually ruined effort preventing edit-warring in editing that page. Elen told me [3] that refactoring block logs unfortunately is almost unfeasible and suggested me save the diff or link of the discussion and her opinion. Here I wonder if it is possible by this chance, as my request, that Arbitration Committee can correct this mistake in any more formal format. Thank you in advance! -- Lvhis ( talk) 17:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Withdrawn by requester. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I'm currently travelling in remote areas in South East Asia where Internet connection is hard to find so I need more time to respond. Please give me about 2 weeks.
STSC (
talk)
07:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
|
This article should be also included on the case. STSC ( talk) 00:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I thought the clerk was very kind to let us go beyond 500 words in our evidence, I'm getting a little disturbed by the ever increasing amount of "Evidence" (i.e., difs, more examples, etc.), including that described as "analysis of evidence...are we really supposed to be using this space to just list more and more complaints about each other? I've intentionally tried not to engage in too much back and forth, though I admit being unable to fully resist, but with more and more "data" coming in from some editors, I feel like I should be out scouring for more evidence... Or maybe a better question is, what really do you want us (the parties) to be doing now? I know we're waiting for one Magog the Ogre's evidence; I think a few of the editors are considering making proposals...but what would be most constructive for us? Or is it time for all us (the involved parties) to just wait for questions, etc. (save for those who haven't finished as just mentioned). Qwyrxian ( talk) 11:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
So, we started with evidence, then came the "commenting on evidence" and making proposals, now we're somewhere between commenting on "commenting on evidence" and commenting on counter-evidence presented in response to arguments against certain proposals.... Couldn't we just stop? Why are we just arguing amongst ourselves? Arbcom has the evidence. They have our proposals. Couldn't we maybe, you know, let them arbitrate? I'm so tired of all of this...of having to dissect/read dissection of every statement and counter-statement and losing track of the big picture. Maybe I can phrase this directly to ArbCom: is there anything more you want from us? Is there anything you want clarified? Is what we are doing now beneficial to you all? Qwyrxian ( talk) 05:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Please read what Newyorkbrad, one of the drafting arbitrators, says above. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Stop Oda Mari using Twinkle
Oda Mari has been abusing the use of Twinkle; she must be stopped.
STSC (
talk)
01:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
See below: proposed ban.
STSC (
talk)
17:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
2)
3)
4)
In the context created by the evidence presented thus far, the differences and distinctions between Forest management and Arboriculture suggest arguable useful patterns, e.g.,
IMO, the evidence only addresses what to do now, today. What next?
IMO, more difficult questions have to do with what could have been done or should have been done differently in the past?
IMO, more constructive questions have to do with making guesses about how to address similar uncertainties, problems, stumbling blocks, etc. which are likely to arise in the future? -- Tenmei ( talk) 18:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you know the idiomatic expression "can't see the forest for the trees"? Would you agree that your evidence here is generalist and reductive? Are you willing to tweak your evidence in response to questioning? If so, can you see how it may help ArbCom to revisit your evidence with a wider perspective? On the basis of lessons learned the hard way, what could have averted this ArbCom case? what about the future? -- Tenmei ( talk) 18:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you know the idiomatic express "can't see the forest for the trees"? In your initial analysis of issues in this case, you suggested here that "some rules/guidelines for conduct and censure of the bad apples from Arbcom would be quite helpful". Are you willing to tweak your comment in response to questioning? If so, can you see how it may help ArbCom to revisit your suggestions with a wider perspective? On the basis of lessons learned the hard way, what could have averted this ArbCom case? what about the future? -- Tenmei ( talk) 19:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Do you know the idiomatic express "can't see the forest for the trees"? In your initial analysis of issues in this case, you observed here that you have been "baffled by some discussions" and "disheartened by the lack of ability to agree on almost anything". You also suggest that "[s]ometimes prevention is better than cure". Are you willing to tweak your comment in response to questioning? If so, can you see how it may help ArbCom to revisit your impressions with a wider perspective? On the basis of lessons learned the hard way, what could have averted this ArbCom case? what about the future? -- Tenmei ( talk) 19:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I always understood this to be a unifying theme in your cumulative diffs -- trying to prevent things from getting out of hand, trying to ameliorate, to mitigate the effects of a strategic jabs and pokes and hits which unfolded across months. I perceived your edits as tactical, but your words were informed by analysis which was a little different than mine.
When you and I felt "baffled" and "disheartened", the sense of puzzlement was the effect intended by someone else. Time after time, your responses were arguably constructive; but perhaps something could have been better in one or more instances. I don't know.
Am I alone in wanting ArbCom to help us address difficult-to-formulate questions about what you or I or we could have done differently at each step of the way, e.g.,
Do you anticipate encountering variant dilemmas in the coming months and years? Is it inevitable that we will always respond ineffectively? For example, your moderate diffs at Talk:Senkaku Islands #Edit warring were marginalized -- twisted by Bobthefish2 and thwarted by Qwyrxian. If you had written nothing, your silence and mine would have encouraged more of the gambit which needed to be discouraged. What you did write didn't work out well. My endorsement didn't help. In retrospect, this was one of the pivotal incidents which illustrate "sometimes prevention is better than cure."
In contrast, Qwyrxian's perception of "both sides pretty much entrenched and non-collaborative" and Mercutio's "plague o' both your houses!" becomes the self-fulfilling prophesy which overwhelms all else.-- Tenmei ( talk) 15:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
In response to SirFozzie's diff here, David Fuchs' diff here, Jclemens' diff here, Coren's diff here please consider this:
Does this help you (and the rest of us) in coming to grips with the marriage of conduct-related and content-related issues?
Is this premise (or this question) distinguishable from trying to teach fish how to swim ( 班门弄斧) and talking past each other ( 鸡同鸭讲 or 雞同鴨講)? -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Why or how were the diffs of Bobthefhish2 so effective for so long?
What explains the demonstrated and recurring ability to influence our talk page threads? -- Tenmei ( talk) 19:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
|
|
|
The bottom line question is this: What is this case about? -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
|
|
|
The bottom line question is this: What is this case about? -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create and maintain a high-quality encyclopedia using a process of collaborative editing
2) The credibility and accuracy of our content is extremely important. Our policy of verifiability requires that article content which is challenged or is likely to be challenged must be attributable to a reliable source supporting the information presented.
3) Wikipedia's shared vocabulary of terms are essential for dispute resolution; and this expressly encompasses the community-endorsed pyramid graphic at Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution.
File:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement1.svg The pyramid graphic posted at WP:DR is the only image on the page. This is the specific wording of the pyramid graphic which was identified by Qwyrxian as an "unhelpful image" here. The graphic emphasizes a few terms:
- Refuting the Central Point → refutes the central point
- Refutation → finds the mistake and explains why its mistaken using quotes
- Counterargument → contradicts and then backs it up with reasoning and/or supporting evidence
- Contradiction → states the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence
- Responding to Tone → criticizes the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument
- Ad Hominem → attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument
- Name calling → sounds something like, "You are an ass hat."
At WP:DR, the image caption is an hortatory command: "Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid."
As a consequence of Qwyrxian's encouragment and support, others like Bobthefish2, STSC and Lvhis pursued strategies based on contradiction and ad hominem arguments.
As a consequence of Qwyrxian's encouragement and support, others like Bobthefish2, STSC and Lvhis pursued strategies based on marginalization of refutation and counterargument.
1) This case is a direct consequence of ArbCom's past failures to act.
2) Instances of "gaming the system" highlight flaws which are susceptible to amelioration, mitigation, repair.
@Jclemens -- Does this restatement help establish a context for addressing the problems "that MedCom defers and throws our way"?
@Coren -- Do these otherwise unstated presumptions help us move towards the "consensus [which] could be reached if everyone behaved and where Arbcom could help by making sure everybody does"?
How can we begin to grasp that we're barking up the wrong tree when we contrive arguably reasonable pigeonholes and a false dilemma at the same time. We all make these kinds of mistakes from time to time, but the character of small misjudgments are changed when they are re-formatted as accusations.
Like Bobthefish2 in a range of contexts, whose pattern of thinking Qwyrxian mirrors here, the focused complaint anticipates a binary response -- yes/no, guilty/innocent, culpable/non-culpable, etc. One constructive response is to step back; and on further consideration, perhaps the premises of the proposition need to be tweaked?
WP:Arguing about arguing -- The diff of Bobthefish2
above is emblematic characteristic of a tactic which has been effective in other Senkaku Islands contexts. See also
Arguing about arguing in my proposed remedies. --
Tenmei (
talk)
17:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
These are not all my words, but I propose them as if they were my own. -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
1) ArbCom acknowledges that real-world factions that vie for control over articles, turning them into polemical battlegrounds where surface civility is used to cover bias, tendentiousness and even harassment.
In this ArbCom context, your task is to parse the available data to distinguish between a dispute which is primarily about water and rocks and something else which has water and rocks as significant elements. Do you see the difference? Are your words opening a door or shutting out something unforseen? --
Tenmei (
talk)
19:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
2) ArbCom acknowledges the problem of "polite disruption" by those who misuse our rules and policies as weapons.
In this specific case, I paraphrase the words of Phoenix7777 here as if they were my own, e.g.,
I adopt the words of Kanguole as if they were my own: "We should not be campaigning to change common usage, or be more 'correct' than our sources".
3) ArbCom acknowledges that long-term warriors are toxic, not "vested" contributors.
For example, part of our problem in Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute is that Qwyrxian was a tango dance partner. There were mis-steps; and there were unforeseen consequences which ensued.
ArbCom has a constructive role to play in acknowledging Qwyrxian's tango, his mis-steps and the unintended consequences of mis-steps. These are part of the several Gordian knots which toxic participants have created.
Qwyrxian is here to build an encyclopedia, and mis-steps are not unexpected. In this context, I worry that a diff posted by Qwyrxian will be overlooked:
Characterising others as " pretty much entrenched and non-collaborative" is a self-fulfilling prophesy -- see also "Bad apples", "Prevention is better than cure", and "What is this case all about?" below. -- Tenmei ( talk) 14:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
4) ArbCom acknowledges the "content" and "conduct" are sometimes married, not divorced informed by the related concepts of
Information asymmetry (
ja:情報の非対称性) and
Moral hazard (
zh:道德风险); and this means
less timidity in addressing issues related to content including POV warring, tag teams, academic dishonesty, etc.
5) ArbCom acknowledges that restraint in curtailing content disputes has unintended consequences. Wikipedia fails when academic integrity is not a priority, e.g., unlike "simple" incivility, the damage caused by editors misquoting, plagiarizing and editorializing affects the credibility of our encyclopedia.
6) ArbCom acknowledges that increased transparency in the dispute resolution process enhances the ability of the community to find ways to mitigate future problems before ArbCom is invited to intervene.
7) ArbCom acknowledges a burden to to explain decisions in better detail -- beyond a simple "aye/nay" -- and to expose ArbCom's reasoning and justification. This is necessary because the community benefits from understanding why ArbCom rules as it does.
8) ArbCom establishes discretionary sanctions, which can serve to impose the community's behavioral expectations on new editors.
9) ArbCom acknowledges and deprecates edits which are designed to "delegitimize" and delegitimization as a tactic.
According to the evidence adduced in this case, the individual and cumulative contributions of Bobthefish2 are notable. His ability to affect the development of our articles and talk pages is demonstrated. In the context Magog suggests, there are follow-up questions. A review of Bob's edit history is important if our project is to mitigate a repetition of similar tactics.
10) ArbCom acknowledges and deprecates edits which are "arguing about arguing".
At least for now, I’m not going to write out a full proposal per the template below. I know that Arbcom has some standardized formats and wording that it uses for decisions of this type, but I'd have to actually search through prior decisions to identify the exact phrasings; I feel that current Arbcom members can do that better than I can. In other words, I trust Arbcom to find the proper context and justifications for whatever remedies are taken.
As for actual remedies, my proposal is quite simple:
"When I saw the POV tag, I asked myself "Who think it's biased?". North and South America, Europe, Africa, Middle East…most people are indifferent or don’t think it biased. My answer was Chinese, Taiwanese, Overseas Chinese, and CPOV supporters. I asked Penwhale the question. [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] Conclusion: Only Chinese and Taiwanese think Senkaku biased. Those who say the SI is a biased name are CPOV pushers, abusing NPOV policy. Additionally, when I saw this, I thought "Any name will do for them but the single use of Senkaku"."
In the "General discussion" section below, see Prevention is better than cure. -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Qwyrxian's proposal on topic ban. Plus, Lvhis should be indef. topic banned on Senkaku related articles. As I pointed out in my evidence, Lvhis has been concentrating on Senkaku related articles/talks too much.
User:Bobthefish2 is indefinitely communitysite/topic banned for at least a year.
User:Lvhis is indefinitely topic banned for at least a year.
User:STSC is indefinitely topic banned for at least a year. Although he's been in WP for years, he still doesn't understand what is incivility. [19]
outdated
|
---|
This is outdated. I will propose something different in the near future. -- Bobthefish2 ( talk) 20:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC) |
It has come to my attention that several parties (i.e. Magog the Ogre, Oda Mari, and Tenmei) attempted to use these attributes to discredit other parties. While it may seem to be the norm for well-establish editors to devote themselves to a wide range of topics, it is important to note that many editors have a more casual interest in the project under normal circumstances (barring disputes such as this, where activity may spike).
Also, it is inappropriate to use a ratio of # of article edits vs. # of talk page edits, to evaluate the overall contribution of an editor. Both content management and content evaluation are vital aspects of a project.
Do not use ambiguous statistics of a user's contribution history to draw conclusions on his motives, credibility, and overall contributions to Wikipedia.
It is important to note that every major discussion that took place regarding Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute collapsed due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT of certain parties that are actively in favour of the current article names. Their directed accusations of incivility and battleground mentality committed by opposing parties are largely hypocritical and are distractive devices employed to selectively undermine opposing voices and to mask the true extent of their tendentious editing.
Before deciding on sanctions, bear in mind that incivility is a mere pretext of certain vested parties to advocate indefinite bans on their opponents.
Remove the administrative status of Magog the Ogre.
Remove the administrative status of Magog the Ogre.
The substantial reason for such hardly solvable dispute finally bringing involved parties to here is mainly due to that the dispute is tightly related to an international territory dispute, as said " this is another example of an ethnic-national dispute of a type that gives rise to a great number of disputes on Wikipedia, including a significant portion of arbitration cases. ". As one of involved parties, here I just mainly propose some principles rather than merely assert which particular party or parties should be banned or admonished, which I believe Arbitrators can make their right decisions based on their experience and on their analysis of all evidence provided.
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopaedia, and this effort is best achieved based on its Five pillars. Core content policies for these Five pillars are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (:NPOV), Wikipedia:No original research (:NOR), and Wikipedia:Verifiability (:SOURCE). These core content policies should be re-emphasized for this Arbitration case as they are even more critical in solving the dispute on Wikipedia pages related to ethnic-national dispute. In terms of NPOV here, Wikipedia shall not be forced to take side when its pages involving international territory dispute. In terms of NOR and SOURCE, the use of Wikipedia for advocacy for one side of such international dispute with editors own original research or opinions from unreliable sources, is prohibited. Using original research is prohibited not only in editing the pages in question, but also in discussions about editing the pages because such original research has impeded and will impede reaching consensus on editing as well as collaborative editing. Such original research is usually POV or national POV as specifically for the pages in question.
2) The current case is very similar to the case Liancourt Rocks that has been an example in the guideline WP:NCGN#Multiple local names. To solve current dispute and reach consensus, all involved parties/editors, and future editors, should learn to compromise to avoid giving the impression of support for a particular national POV. It is important to apply Wikipedia's NPOV policy and relative guideline with consistency on similar articles. Otherwise, dispute will keep occurring not only on the pages of the current arbitration case bur also on the other page. The reputation and credibility of Wikipedia will be damaged.
I agree that NPOV should be applied on all pages. I do not believe that this means that the result on all pages will be the same. For example, Sea of Japan is never going to move to some sort of theoretical "neutral" name just because Korea happens to argue that the name is biased. To apply NPOV, we must consider what is actually the English name. That's why we use the term Boston massacre, even though the term is obviously "not neutral". Now, is "Senkaku Islands" the correct, neutral name for this article? I think so, but I'm not sure, and I feel that part of the reason we can't figure it out is because disruptive editing is preventing collegial discussions. Thus, the need for this RfAr--first we fix the behavioral problems, then we get back to the content issues. Qwyrxian ( talk) 10:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
3) The problem of some editors sometimes did not behave in line with WP:CIVIL has occurred in most, if not every, of cases submitted for Arbitration. My proposal about this is nothing new and is very simple: we just follow what the policy WP:CIVIL has stated.
4) Users with administrative authority for managing such hot pages should restrictively obey the policy WP:SYSOP, of which " Expectations of adminship" should be more emphasized. As stated in " Care and judgement" of that policy and lessons in this case as raised in my evidence, unitary standard should be applied with fairness and consistency to enforce any sanctions to prevent edit-warring. This is the way that can keep such sanction effective, and also keep the administrative authority being real neutral. Those users authorized with adminship but have been involved in the dispute as regular users are still expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful manner as stated in the parts " Administrator conduct" and " Accountability" of that policy, including obeying the policies mentioned above Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and WP:CIVIL.
1) Involved parties violated Wikipedia important policies WP:NOR, WP:SOURCE, and WP:NPOV using Original Research to prevent consensus in discussion for editing a section of the page Senkaku Islands dispute, and potentially to prevent consensus in naming dispute, as opposing that NPOV policy and relative guideline should be applied on articles with consistency. [32] [33] -- Lvhis ( talk) 00:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
2) The substance of this case is more similar to that of Liancourt Rocks Case.
3) {{ POV-title}} tag was ever removed for several occasions by involved parties when discussion was still ongoing and dispute was not yet resolved. [37]
4) Involved parties sometimes did not behave in line with WP:CIVIL.
5) Some involved party with Administrative authority has violated Wikipedia policy " Care and judgement" and " Accountability" of WP:SYSOP when using such authority to manage the page in question [38] [39]. Some involved party with Administrative authority not directly using this authority and only being involved in the pages in question as regular user/editor has violated Wikipedia policy Administrator conduct besides violated Wikipedia policies WP:NOR, WP:SOURCE, and WP:NPOV as raised in "Proposed findings of fact 4.5.2.1" above [40] [41] [42] [43].
6) An involved party played a pronounced negative role in edit and discussion of the pages in question.
As in evidence raised from most of involved parties, this party is user Tenmei [47] [48] [49] [50], whose repeatedly deliberate violation of a sanction set up by admin was the blasting fuse of exposing the admin's defect and dragging the case to the Arbitration [51] [52]. -- Lvhis ( talk) 00:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
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.
1) User Qwyrxian and User Oda Mari are banned for a period of one year from Senkaku Islands topics, broadly defined, and may appeal this decision to the committee no earlier than one year from the time sanctions are imposed. The justification for this proposed remedy is as stated in " Proposed findings of fact 4.5.2.1".
2) Parties who were proved having violated "proposed principle 4.5.1.3" are admonished for incivility. If any such incivility reoccurs from now on, the perpetrating party or parties will be banned for a period of 6 months from Senkaku Islands topics, broadly defined, and may appeal this decision to the committee no earlier than 6 months from the time sanctions are imposed.
3) User Tenmei is banned for a period of one year from Senkaku Islands topics, broadly defined, and may appeal this decision to the committee no earlier than one year from the time sanctions are imposed. The justification for this proposed remedy is as stated in " Proposed findings of fact 4.5.2.6".
4) User Qwyrxian is desysopped due to violation of "proposed principle 4.5.1.4", "proposed princeple 4.5.1.1", and "proposed princeple 4.5.1.2". The justification for this proposed remedy is as stated in " Proposed findings of fact 4.5.2.5" and " Proposed findings of fact 4.5.2.1".
5) Due to violation of " proposed principle 4.5.1.4", the administrative authority of User Magog_the_Ogre is banned for a period of one year from Senkaku Islands topics, broadly defined, and may appeal this decision to the committee no earlier than one year from the time sanction are imposed. The privilege of regular user/editor for the topics in question for User Magog_the_Ogre is not banned. The administrative authority of User Magog_the_Ogre for Wikipedia topics other than the topics in question here is not affected. The justification for this proposed remedy is as stated in " Proposed findings of fact 4.5.2.5".
1) Per " Proposed principle 4.5.1.2", the topic of Senkaku Islands, broadly defined, is placed under discretionary sanctions, like what for the precedent Liancourt Rocks case. Similar to "Liancourt Rocks case" as justified in " Proposed findings of fact 4.5.2.2", consensus should be forced to reach among involved parties upon the " proposed principle 4.5.1.1" and "proposed principle 4.5.1.2" as the final step for Dispute Resolution for this case.
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) Wikipedia must not let any editor use this arbitration process to silent other editors (namely STSC, Bobthefish2 and Lvhis) who honestly try to maintain neutrality in the articles which have been unbalanced and biased.
Moved to case talkpage by clerk. Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 14:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
The mentality and behaviour of the administrators should be thoroughly examined for their suitability as administrator in the community. This is to prevent any likelihood of disputes with the editors in the future. STSC ( talk) 00:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
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.
1) Qwyrxian's statement, "Even though STSC disputes my interpretation, I still believe this statement ("the title with the Japanese name is never NPOV as long as Japan is one of the participants in the territorial dispute") implies he will never accept the name Senkaku, no matter how many times consensus favors it; this refusal to accept consensus is antithetical to collaborative editing."
It is absolutely ridiculous by any standard. Does he think he is God deciding everything according to his "interpretation"? He is just violating other people's mind. Wikipedia cannot have someone with this kind of extreme egocentric mentality to be a fair administrator.
I just wanted to add one small thing here, then I'm probably done with all of this evidence, counter-evidence, proposals, etc. until outside members start getting involved. While Feezo really isn't allowed to comment here in detail because of the privileged nature of mediation and his role in that mediation, I think it is worth pointing out his support vote on my RfA which says: "I.... was consistently impressed by [Qwyrxian's] patience, evenhandedness, writing skills, and desire to reach genuine consensus during a period of intense cultural conflict. He was in many ways almost a co-mediator, and I heartily endorse him for adminship." I believe that that speaks fairly strongly for my conduct on these pages. Qwyrxian ( talk) 00:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
2) Her contributions record has shown that she has been trigger-happy with the Twinkle and she repeatedly used TW to revert good-faith edits in the articles without a valid reason.
3) She obviously has very little interest in actually editing the English articles apart from just reverting any edit which is not to her liking. STSC ( talk) 17:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
4) These clean-up tags should be in place to invite new inputs from other editors.
5) The cooling-off period should continue until the dispute of the articles' title is resolved.
6) I once described Tenmei's style of writing like a badly-programmed humanoid. Wikipedia is certainly not a platform for someone who likes to show off the art of obscurity. A total ban would make Tenmei appreciate the editing privileges and hopefully reform himself/herself.
1) Any enforcement action should only be carried out by administrators who are not involved in this case.
1) {text of Proposed principle}
1) Tenmei's pattern of speech has been disruptive.
2) Bobthefish2 has engaged in a pattern of trolling in order to gain a hand up in the dispute. His edits have been primarily geared toward trolling.
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.
1) User:Bobthefish2 is indefintiely banned, and may appeal this decision to the committee no earlier than one year from the time sanctions are imposed.
2) User:Bobthefish2 is banned for a period of one year.
3) User:Bobthefish2 is indefinitely topic banned from articles relating to Senkaku Islands, broadly defined, and may appeal this decision to the committee no earlier than one year from the time sanctions are imposed.
4) User:Lvhis is banned for a period of one year from articles relating to Senkaku Islands, broadly defined, and may appeal this decision to the committee no earlier than six month from the time sanctions are imposed.
The check-off list at WP:Not being here to build an encyclopedia helps us to recognize the edit history of Lvhis for what it is. -- Tenmei ( talk) 15:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
5) User:Lvhis is indefinitely placed on 1RR/week restriction for articles relating to Senkaku Islands, broadly defined, and may appeal this decision to the committee no earlier than one year from the time sanctions are imposed.
6) User:Tenmei is indefinitely topic banned from articles relating to Senkaku Islands, broadly defined, and may appeal this decision to the committee no earlier than one year from the time sanctions are imposed.
Yes, my participation has been under-appreciated, marginalized and partly misunderstood; but it is also proven that tit-for-tat edits fared less well in threads muddied with "delegitimization as a tactic" and other tactical goals -- compare thread (29-30 Jan 2011); diff (30 Jan 2011); compare subsequent review (31 Aug 2011); see also diff (9 June 2011).
Rather than a judgmental adjective like "coherent", perhaps a better way to characterize my edits is with the phrase "above the fray" or "under the radar" or "focused on underlying issues". In other words, is it possible that Magog's cursory glance simply didn't capture that I was steadfast in keeping my "eyes on the prize", e.g.,
File:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement1.svg The pyramid graphic posted at WP:DR is the only image on the page. This is the specific wording of the pyramid graphic which was identified by Qwyrxian as an "unhelpful image" here. The graphic emphasizes a few terms:
- Refuting the Central Point → refutes the central point
- Refutation → finds the mistake and explains why its mistaken using quotes
- Counterargument → contradicts and then backs it up with reasoning and/or supporting evidence
- Contradiction → states the opposing case with little or no supporting evidence
- Responding to Tone → criticizes the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument
- Ad Hominem → attacks the characteristics or authority of the writer without addressing the substance of the argument
- Name calling → sounds something like, "You are an ass hat."
At WP:DR, the image caption is an hortatory command: "Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid."
7) User:Tenmei is topic banned for a period of one year from articles relating to Senkaku Islands, broadly defined, and may appeal this decision to the committee no earlier than one year from the time sanctions are imposed.
8) User:Tenmei is indefinitely placed on 1RR/week restriction for articles relating to Senkaku Islands, broadly defined, and may appeal this decision to the committee no earlier than one year from the time sanctions are imposed.
9) User:Lvhis is warned about edit warring.
10) User:Phoenix7777 is warned about edit warring.
11) User:John Smith's is warned about edit warring.
12) User:Oda Mari is cautioned about edit warring.
Is it not reasonable to project A similar process unfolds in advance of each edit in a controversial subject like
Senkaku Islands and
Senkaku Islands dispute.
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
I saw that Qwyrxian commented in his evidence [62] that I have a willingness to game the system (xe advocated getting the page locked so that people give up and leave.
I would like to point out that this event occurred during a time when there was a lot of disruptive editing and edit-wars going on, which was also considered to be a major problem by Qwyrxian himself back then [63]:
heck, I even find the comments of some of the editors on what (Bob perceives as) "our side" to be frustrating. It's a difficult environment to work in when even changes of 2 or 3 words are argued over ad nauseum -- Qwyrxian
In #1 of this section, I showed that the pages were locked by the administrator known as User:Nihonjoe partly in response to on-going edit-wars. Since I did not participate or incite the edit-wars, I am not certain how I could be accused of gaming the system.
However, two parties responsible for the aforementioned edit-wars did in fact erroneously accuse me of allegedly planning an edit-war (see Diff-set #1 in this diff section). Since then, one of them (Tenmei) has seen fit to consider every action I take as some sort of sinister conspiracy (see #2 of "Newsletters". Some examples of such McCarthyism can be seen in these ArbCom pages ( [64] [65]). -- Bobthefish2 ( talk) 02:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Numerous parties (namely Qwyrxian, Magog the Ogre, and Oda Mari) accused me of Battleground, CANVASS, and/or Tag-teaming in their evidence (see their evidence).
I would start off by showing this diff from my evidence [66]:
I'm not talking about the current problem. I'm talking that every single little change causes either an edit war, a near edit war, or such a massive, overwhelming talk page discussion with both sides pretty much entrenched and non-collaborative. This particular point is just an example. If we don't go into mediation, I can discuss the solution to this particular point, but I don't think anyone is going to like it, and I don't think the current tone on this page is going to allow for a serious consideration of it -- Qwyrxian, written on Feb 4, 2011
This quote by Qwyrxian himself (long ago) suggested that BATTLEGROUND is a systemic problem harboured by many parties. This serves to contradict the tone of his evidence, which subtly presents this as a an isolated problem that is attributed to only myself and STSC. To further support this contradiction, I'd refer the audience to the list of examples in my evidence where I showed how others parties had taken the initiative to provoke a battleground setting (Section Link).
I will end this section with a reminder the act of holding a selected few individuals responsible for a systemic problem caused by many parties can in itself be considered as an act backed by a battleground mentality, especially if:
Next, there's Oda Mari's allegation of CANVASS [67]. The examples she quoted with a time stamp of October 2010 is ridiculous, because I only joined WP on September 2010. Also interestingly, nobody warned me of it until this ArbCom case.
The other "canvassing" example dated to Summber 2011 [68] is also ridiculous because the matter of concern deals with Chinese linguistics. If the audience follows the second link of the quoted post, it'd lead back to a discussion in WP_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names), which one may observe that I had made several statements of regarding an intent to inviting Project China and zh:WP over for commentary (and which nobody replied to). -- Bobthefish2 ( talk) 21:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Oda Mari considers my collaboration with STSC and Lvhis to be tag-teaming, but does not consider the "newletters" Tenmei regularly sends to John Smiths, Oda Mari, and Phoenix7777. In this very page, we can also see some form of tag-teaming going on between John Smiths, Oda Mai, and Tenemi in seeing how the former two selectively offered exceedingly generous leniency to the latter but yet advocating ridiculous motions against others [69] [70].
Lvhis [71] (see "Improper conduct with double standards and gaming the system ruined efforts preventing edit-warring") and I [72] (see "Magog_the_Ogre") raised the issue of possible misconduct on the part of two admins (specifically, Magog the Ogre and Qwyrxian). The context of this matter lies on the fact that he blocked Lvhis over a BRD interruption while exempting Tenmei from the same sanctions. The following are notable red flags associated with this ordeal:
It's possible that I am wrong and that the admins I raised questions about handle matters in a completely fair manner way that I somehow cannot comprehend. But in the event that I am actually correct, then it may be practical to consider whether or not flawed leadership of authority figures are, in fact, very important contributors to the overall problem (in Qwyrxian's case, it'd stretch back to the time before he became an admin).
With everything said, I would like to conclude this remark with the presentation of a classic Chinese idiom "上梁不正下梁歪" [76], which has the following meaning:
"When the higher-ups (or parents) do not set a good example, the subordinates (or children) cannot be expected to behave well."
Fine.
In other words, Tenemi's last edit in this sequence is the start of a new BRD cycle. If we follow your logic, it would be impossible for Tenmei to ever edit the article again, until someone else edited the article. That is not now nor has it ever been how BRD works. That interpretation would mean you could use BRD to lock out other editors--the first person to start a BRD cycle would essentially always get to start all of the following, particularly for situations where there are only a small number of editors. Tenmei's edit was 3 days later, and clearly a bold attempt to try to break the stalemate on the section by offering a different solution to the phrasing in the lead. Of course, I reverted Tenmei very shortly thereafter, because his edit was terribly biased, but that still doesn't make it a BRD violation (although, as Elen of the Roads correctly pointed out, BRD was the wrong tool and isn't really meant to be something one can "violate"). Lvhis was blocked earlier (July 22) because Lvhis made a bold edit (fine), it was reverted about 12 hours later (fine), and, only 5 hours after the revert, re-inserted nearly the same text that xe had made earlier that day (not fine). There is a radical difference between their actions. Note, as I said before, that I do think Tenmei's edits on August 12 deserved a block, because they were definitely re-inserting a non-consensus version, when he was allegedly on a break from the articles. I even asked Magog to block Tenmei for it. That xe chose not to is, in my opinion, a mistake, but not abuse of administrative power. Qwyrxian ( talk) 13:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Since Feezo was our mediator, it requires a full disclosure of the content within the mediation to address my dispute with him. If the ArbCom would like to get into that, I will defend my actions according to the inaccessible materials. Otherwise, there is only one piece of non-censored exchange between Feezo and I, which is listed as evidence by multiple parties (here are some links from their evidence sections [86] [87]).
The parties that raised a red-flag about my behaviour in that thread neglected to mention that Feezo was the instigator of that loaded exchange and had taken the initiative to bait on multiple occasions. The original message I wrote to him was simply a heads-up about the amount of controversy he caused in inappropriately removing a POV tag, which resulted in a full blown ANI against Penwhale (see Point #2 in this section). His first response was a passive aggressive comment and later posts were personal attacks (that Qwyrxian and Magog the Ogre conveniently did not describe in their evidence).
The following comment of mine (quoted by others) requires some addressing:
Yes, I do strongly recommend not to spend too much time in WP. While it may seem 1337 for a person to show off his 50k+ edits in contribution history, there are other things in life that can benefit more from such dedication. If you don't mind me asking, what's your training and what kind of job are you looking for? -- Bobthefish2
One last thing I would like to mention is that Feezo and I later had an e-mail exchange which appeared to have settled our personal differences. Unless he disputes this, I am going to leave it at that. -- Bobthefish2 ( talk) 03:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Magog's section about me [88], in general, is filled with petty and inaccurate complaints:
In short. Magog has shown an inability to behave maturely as an admin. When faced with legitimate criticisms of his actions as an admin, he did not strive for correcting the said mistakes. But instead, he attacked his critics, nit-picked their flaws, and then proposed [96] [97] some indefinite bans to get rid of them. This type of person is not suited to be an administrator in any respectable medium.
The dates of hyperlinks which Qwyrxian selected are these. -- Tenmei ( talk) 04:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The first sentence of Qwyrxian's "evidence" serves as my rebuttal:
Qwyrxian's complaints are over-reaching, and the remedies proposed are disproportionate in the context of the evidence presented. -- Tenmei ( talk) 21:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Hyperlinks which Bobthefish2 added to evidence on September 11 are these. -- Tenmei ( talk) 17:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
The dates of hyperlinks which Magog selected are these. -- Tenmei ( talk) 05:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
This verb "delegitimize" and what Magog says it means are helpful in other contexts beyond the specifics of one instance:
I denied the false claim, and I offered specific support for that denial. What would have been the likely consequence of ignoring the very specific warning?
This dilemma was not of my own making; and in the awkward context, my response was seemly and proportionate Magog's warning effectively endorsed Bob's delegitimizing attack.
When Magog rejected my words, Magog was officially validating Bob's tactic.
My restatement used the words of others because sentences drafted by someone else are resistant to complaints that I write badly. The words in wikiquote are selected precisely because they are written in a comprehensible manner. It is hard to figure out how or why the substance of These re-used words were is also marginalized but it is not for lack of trying -- see also
"Analysis of Evidence presented by Qwyrxian" above.
An unexpected consequence of my research led to the discovery of an analysis which explains the arc of diffs posted by Bobthefish2 and San9696 and STSC and Lvhis:
In this bullet, the summation opinion is not evidence when Magog explain states, "In other words, Tenmei implies ...." This is a
factoid only. It is a questionable or spurious—unverified, incorrect, or fabricated—statement presented as a fact, but with no veracity.
It is also not evidence when Magog argue states "he ignores other editor's points". This is also only a
factoid. It is an example of unreliable information which is repeated so often that it becomes accepted as if it were a fact
In the User talk:Magog the OGre#Strategic fraud thread which Magog cites, my diffs show an active effort to try to understand and parse what others are writing -- see also User:Tenmei is banned indefinitely from Senkaku Islands topics above. -- Tenmei ( talk) 18:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Magog is correct that I withdrew from active participation in this subject for a short time. On talk pages of each active editor, I asked, "Is it possible that my contributions are somehow 'feeding' conflict?" I proposed, "One way to test the hypothesis is by simply stepping back for a while." This distancing gesture is inconsistent with the Magog's use of m:MPOV or WP:DIVA.
|
|
Magog's complaints are over-reaching, and the remedies proposed are disproportionate in the context of evidence presented. -- Tenmei ( talk) 15:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
ArbCom fails when it "can't see the forest for the trees". General discussion may help mitigate the ways our process falls short.
Magog argues that
"censure of the bad apples would be quite helpful." This is only tangential to our primary goal, which is ensuring the academic credibility of the articles in our
collaborative editing project. For example, "bad apples" are a side issue beside the point when Qwyrixian highlights the tension between "non-opinion" and "opinion", e.g.,
Rejecting "bad apples" is not the only function of ArbCom, nor will this help us to work out ways to avert similar difficulties.
In his initial analysis, John Smith's observed here that "[s]ometimes prevention is better than cure".
The diffs cited by others were selected for purposes which have been made explicit. In each perceived example of misconduct, the question becomes something to do with discovering a plausible antidote or anti-tactic which might have served to "re-frame" or "spin" something better?
It is crucial to emphasize the distinction between "behaving badly" and misjudgments or mis-steps. For example, like Oda Mari, I sometimes think that Qwyrxian is "trying to be fair too much, losing his own way" -- compare Qwyxian's willingness to "abandon WP:V just based on AGF". Among the notable causes of this ArbCom case were the best efforts of Qwyrxian as he tried to apply our rules and policies in a complex context, e.g.,
Unstated premises in the scope of arbitration need to be explicit. Some of the foreseeable consequences of some problems are mitigated by identifying them.
According to Elen of the roads, "A useful thing that the parties can do is help Arbcom with ... what it is that [WP:RfArb/Senkaku] is all about...."
A few questions seem practical and necessary:
Is it unreasonable to conclude that our investment in WP:RfArb/Senkaku fails if it only results in punitive remedies? -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)