Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei

The following discussion is an archived record of an user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 05:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC).

• Tenmei (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Note that throughout I use this RFC/U is use the invented gender neutral pronoun "xe" and it's derivatives. "Xe" = "he or she"; "xem" = "him or her"; and "xyr" = "his or her".
Tenmei exhibits three specific problems. The first is that xe is using Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND to advance his positions regarding the Senkaku Islands.

Second, Tenmei has a habit of making very sweeping changes to articles, either by significantly re-writing portions of them, or by making very large additions. That, in and of itself wouldn't be a problem, except that after doing so, and having xyr edits objected to, it has taken the extensive, coordinated effort of multiple other editors to get Tenmei to reverse course. In other words, Tenmei follows the first part of WP:BRD, by making bold changes to articles, but then, when reverted, makes xyr first action to restore the deleted content, then argue about it for a while on the talk page, usually leaving the information out only after having been reverted several times.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, Tenmei's talk page behavior is tendentious and inhibits collaboration. In disputes, Tenmei regularly overwhelms readers with walls of text that are very difficult to understand. Much of the time, these walls contain links to Wikipedia articles—not just to policies or articles related to the subject, but to articles on topics like refutation, straw man, and throw the baby out with the bathwater. At times the references are extremely obscure, like the use of latin phrases or quotes from Helen Keller. Tenmei also uses large tables, charts, and graphs, allegedly to frame or explain the discussions. The end result of this information overload is that often a reader has to choose between ignoring what Tenmei said or conducting Wikipedia research just to understand the post. Furthermore, Tenmei regularly refuses to answer questions, claiming that the questions themselves are flawed or improperly framed. As a result, it is often exceedingly difficult, even impossible, to collaborate with xem.

Desired outcome

• Tenmei will cease treating Wikipedia as a battleground to push an agenda.
• Tenmei will, after making bold changes, follow WP:BRD by seriously listening to the concerns of other editors and seeking consensus prior to re-adding the disputed information.
• Tenmei will endeavor to use simpler interactions on the talk page, including fully refraining from "framing" the discussions via charts or graphs.
• Tenmei will, in general, work on Wikipedia in a more collaborative spirit.

Caveat

While preparing this RFC/U, I looked through Tenmei's editing history and talk page. I notice quite a number of positive comments on xyr talk page, although a few other unhappy ones as well. It is possible that Tenmei's communication problems primarily come into the fore when dealing with issues of Japanese politics. When considering to what extent the complaints listed here are accurate, Tenmei might want to consider that perhaps this is not an overall editing problem, but one that is primarily the result of a strong POV with regards to this subject matter. Thus, Tenmei might find that xe can contribute to Wikipedia most effectively by either avoiding these topics or being extra careful when editing them or their talk pages to ensure compliance with community norms.

Evidence of disputed behavior

Examples of failure to discuss substantive changes after being questioned

1. Senkaku Islands was split in early November, with all of the dispute information moved to Senkaku Islands dispute. In such cases WP:Summary style says that we should retain a summary of that other article along with a "Main" link; but the summary should accurately reflect what is in the sub-article. After I made an introductory attempt at such a summary [1], Tenmei reverted [2], then proceeded to both lengthen and change the topic of the section in this sequence of edits. Over the course of the next few days, a few editors including myself reverted him, but he thrice more re-added the information, lengthening it each time ([3], [4], and [5]). Note also that the information in the main article that Tenmei was adding did not match the information in the subarticle. Meanwhile, the edits were discussed at length on the talk page (see Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 6#Territorial dispute and Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 6#maritime border -- delete or move to sub-entry "dispute"). Throughout these discussions, Tenmei completely rejected the comments of a number of different editors. We kept trying to point out that the style xe was introducing simply didn't match WP:Summary style, while xe kept pushing the issue to other policies (WP:NOR and WP:SYN) that weren't relevant, along with the overall claim that even if xyr addition had small flaws, the overall idea was sound. It took the combined weight of many of the other currently active editor on the page to get Tenmei to pull back.
2. Foreign relations of Japan: In this set of revisions, Tenmei introduced a highly undue table that listed, both in words and visually, a set of documents which all support the Japanese claim that China had previously accepted Japanese ownership of the Senkaku Islands. No documents or information were included to support the opposing side; more importantly, none of this belongs in this article, as it unbalances the article, putting far too much emphasis on one small aspect of Japanese foreign relations. Furthermore, in xyr explanation of this section that xe added to the talk page, xe basically implied that xe added this info here only because the Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute article are both fully protected. After I reverted, I explained my view on the article talk page. Rather than carry on a discussion on the talk page, Tenmei first undid my removal, made a note on the talk page, then further expanded the table in two more edits. The tables remained in the article until removed by User:Nihonjoe about 14 hours later.

Examples of battleground mentality

1. Counterargument: After Nihonjoe removed the table described above from Foreign relations of Japan, Tenmei moved his table to Counterargument in this series of edits. The table was listed as an "illustrative example" of counterarguments. In this way, Tenmei transformed the article into a WP:COATRACK to again support his POV on the Senkaku Islands and China's historical positions to them. While Tenmei did not re-add the information after I reverted, the discussion on the talk page (Talk:Counterargument#Coatracking) indicates that Tenmei is so invested in xyr position and/or this table that xe can't see how adding this here is a violation of both WP:NPOV and WP:NOT.
2. Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute#I'll be requesting Mediation later: Around the beginning of February, I felt that the conversation on the article's talk page was so bad that we were no longer collaborating effectively, and thus indicated that I was intending to seek mediation. Other editors, while somewhat reluctant, generally accepted mediation; Tenmei's response was different; besides being typically cryptic, the end point was that xe flatly rejected mediation because xe thought we had been successfully collaborating (even though the article was at that point fully protected and we had made very few constructive improvements of any type to the article in the prior month), and that "The term "mediation" is stripped of its natural meaning when unsupported generalizations are construed to be indistinguishable from citation-supported specifics." If Tenmei really were interested in collaboration and improving, I can't see any reason why mediation should be rejected.
3. Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute#Rinmin Ribao is a primary source: In this edit, Tenmei began calling the desired version of his opponents to be "factoids," which he defined (per the OED) to be "an item of unreliable information that is repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact." This denigration of the position of other editors shows an extreme allegiance to a specific point of view and unwillingness to seek points of collaboration.
4. User Talk:Phoenix7777#Your unanswered questions: As a continuation of the same issue as (3) on another editor's talk page, Tenmei announced that either I or Bobthefish2 (I'm not actually sure which) was running a "con game" to "misdirect" people's attention with by raising the issue of NPOV; further, that I was a "shill for the Bobthefish2 game of cups and balls".

Examples of disruptive talk page editing

1. Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 6#Discussion Analysis: In this section, Tenmei created a massive table which purportedly summarized a recent set of talk page discussions. After being asked by User:San9663 to provide a clearer link to policy, discussion continued for a while, and eventually Tenmei wrote [6] that the table "may have failed in many ways, but it does succeed in proving my willingness to invest time and effort in bringing fine focus to the five points Qwyrxian tried to make a week ago." Despite seeming to have moved on, he continued with the discussion, adding an eight point list ([7]) of specific responses, followed by the claim that xe would"decline to pursue discussion about these table-related issues." Finally, after a comment each by San9663 and Bobthefish2, he added in a picture which is based on a specific model for examining arguments called "Graham's Hierarchy", which as far as I can tell, isn't discussed anywhere on Wikipedia (and so wouldn't even be possible for an editor to easily try to understand, even if they wanted to do the research). The process used here is concerning for two reasons: one, this form of framing and organization of discussion is so non-standard on Wikipedia that it's actually much harder, rather than easier to understand; two, the act of making such a table seems to be a way for Tenmei to define/interpret what all of the other participants said, in effect judging their contributinos and controlling the conversation.
2. Talk:Senkaku Islands/Archive 5#logical fallacy: First, Tenmei began this section by using an obscure latin rhetorical term to criticize something I had said earlier. After I expressed my confusion, Tenmei provided aresponse that was simultaneously quite lengthy and not at all helpful in explaining what his poin was. Later, xe added a graph about which appears to have nothing to do with either argument, or Senkaku, and is, instead, about the concept of trajectory in physics.
3. Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute/Archive 2#what is neutral: Tenmei opened this section with a big breakdown of some edits that San9663 made; this commentary was not too bad at first, because at least it focused primarily upon the article and the diffs of other users, with only 1 outside link. However, after San9663 responded, Tenmei proceeded with much longer response, which is where xe ventures off into very unhelpful and confusing territory. In this response, xe focused very heavily on the minutiae of the argumentative process, and again added the confusing depiction of Graham's Hierarchy.
4. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Long running dispute on Senkaku Islands dispute: I raised a question (still currently open) on whether a certain statement in the Senkaku Islands dispute was NPOV. Tenmei has responded several times, primarily to accuse me of bad faith editing; he said that "Qwyrxian's arguably reasonable formulation is smoke and mirrors. The framing is misleading." Tenmei focused this and the rest of his points only on WP:V and WP:RSN, while failing (intentionally, I have to assume, since I explicitly pointed out the problem several times) to consider that WP:NPOV also applies; this is a form of cherry picking policies. Later, xe added] a second long response, including a quotation from Helen Keller (which xe removed without explanation about 9 hours later). Finally, xe added an even longer section, which for me is the culmination of the tendentious editing which I've observed from xym over the last several months: [8], which xe augmented later that day with [9]. This wall of text contains links to a Latin phrase, a children's nursery rhyme, several philosophical/argumentative concepts, a massive list of over 40 Wikipedia articles in different languages (possibly different versions of the same topic? I don't know), and another claim that WP:V and WP:RS are the "the essential, irreducible threshold" for inclusion.

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:NOTBATTLE (part of WP:NOT)
2. WP:NPOV
3. WP:Disruptive editing

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs of the comments. As with anywhere else on this RfC/U, links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Attempts by User:Qwyrxian

1. [10]: Here I pointed out why Tenmei's style of writing is not helpful (see specifically the collapsed part).
2. [11]: After Tenmei posted yet another table and graph in this series of edits, I again requested that xe refrain from using any more graphs in xyr responses. Tenmei responded on my talk page here, indicating (as far as I could understand) that it doesn't matter that the graphs aren't helpful, because their inclusion helps "demonstrate that my thoughtful attempt to contribute to a skewed discussion is not superficial. The graphics show that I have thought through the issues to such an extent that I am able to reformulate them in a visual format." He said something similar in another diff I'm finding it hard to locate, but the basic claim seems to be that the graphs (and, by analogy the walls of text), are completely acceptable because they demonstrate that xe worked hard, even though the rest of us might find that they impede discussion. Furthermore, after Bobthefish2 amplified my concern, and some other intervening comments, Tenmei replied and said, among others that the focus on his editing style is a "red herring" & "hobby horse" of Bobthefish2's and told the that editor to "put up or shut up".
3. In response to the second point above in "Examples of failure to discuss substantive changes after being questioned", I went to Tenmei's talk page to directly address his refusal to listen to challenges to his additions in this diff. I explicitly asked xem to explain why I should not file an RFC/U about xyr continued failure to edit collaboratively. Tenmei's response not only did not address my concerns, xe specifically acknoweldged that it was only my opinion that the information xe had added did not belong, which is true, but did not acknowledge that where there is a dispute about what should be in an article, it should be discussed on the article's talk page. Furthermore, xe asserted that xe has no POV other than that of enforcing WP:V and WP:RS, which, as before, had nothing to do with my concern (which was rooted in WP:NPOV).

Attempts by User:Bobthefish2

1. [12]: Advised Tenmei to use more comprehensible forms of writing to communicate with others. Obviously, he ignored the advice.
2. [13]: Invited Tenmei to resolve some issues with our mutual collaboration on WP. He appears to have ignored the request.
3. [14]: Invited Tenmei to wrap up an existing dispute (the one that he tried to address with his tables). Upon his lack of response, I asked if I could assume he's conceding and he wrote this inside an old conversation, which appears to be some rant about a post I didn't reply to in the distant past as well as some (presumably shady) tactics being endorsed by User:Qwyrxian. With that said, it appears he planned neither to concede nor provide productive responses to help settle the matter.

Other attempts

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

1. This is characteristic of Tenmei's conduct Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. I have noticed Tenmei had been gaming the system (WP:GAME) on many issues. STSC (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Over-reaching complaints

This RfC/U is based on two articles only:

• Senkaku Islands dispute, article revision statistics
• Senkaku Islands, article revision statistics.

According to the administrator who locked both, the subject has been "POV-magnet, and edit wars happen frequently".

These articles are now locked because of an express strategy articulated here. Bobthefish2 invited STSC to join him: "Let's just get the two pages locked so that they will move on and go mess with better-monitored pages ...."

In other words, these are "battlefield" venues -- not because of any choices I make, but because of factors beyond my ability to affect or control. The unstated objective of this RfC is to marginalize my participation in what is primarily a content dispute. In other words, this RfC is a straw man.

This too-familiar attack gambit must be rejected. The following are relevant factors:

A. The Senkaku Islands and the Senkaku Islands dispute is a complicated three-way dispute about uninhabited above-water features of the East China Sea; and this dispute encompasses mutually exclusive positions and points-of-view of (a) the PRC and (b) the ROC and (c) Japan.

B. In truth, these are "battlefield" articles. Our process of collaborative editing begins with a shared hypothesis that our work is about "verifiability, not truth". Each of my edits and talk page diffs are informed and supported by WP:V + WP:RS because this is how our project defines "facts". In other words, we try to value "facts", not "factoids". However, the unstated purpose of this RfC is to devalue "verification" and to elevate" perceived "truth" based soley on straw polls and intensity of preference.

C. A quick glance at my edit count/pie chart doesn't show much investment in talk pages (nor in talk page arguments); however, there is a common thread which runs through all disputes I have joined. My baseline POV is that "facts" (verified by explicitly cited support) must trump "factoids" (supported by no or zero verifying citations). If not, our project is pointless. This pro-Wikipedia POV is not disruptive nor tendentious nor deserving of anything other than encouragement when it is married, as it is here, with mild language and repeated requests for verifying support citations.

D. Qwyrxian arguably tried to help build consensus by emphasizing WP:NPOV, but his efforts are distilled in a simile: "It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.". There is a mis-match between Qwyrxian's hammer and the nails he tried to hit on the head.

E. Those certifying or endorsing the basis for this RfC include two whose edit histories effectively mark them as single-purpose accounts. Their common goals are discernible across the past six months; but what matters most in this RfC venue are edit histories which are characterized by the absence of verifying support, e.g., inline citations and bibliographic reference citations.

• Bobthefish2, edit count, pages edited: 77
• STSC, edit count, pages edited: 25

As an aside, Nick-D's endorsement is only tangential because he neither edited the articles nor contributed in talk page threads from which this RfC arises.

The one thing I'm sure I did right was to emphasize the vocabulary I found at WP:Dispute resolution and in the graphic at the right. The one thing I'm sure Qwyrxian did wrong was rejecting that helpful vocabulary.

• This RfC wrongly credits (a) contradiction, (b) responding to tone, and (c) ad hominem as persuasive tactics
• This RfC wrongly seeks to discredit (a) refuting the central point, (b) refutation, and (c) counterargument

The complaints which are presented in this RfC are over-reaching. The investment of so much time in responding is questionable; but it is arguably worse to omit a cursory refutation and explanation. --Tenmei (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responding with more specificity

Inside the box This RfC is like a "nine dots" puzzle because its issues are resistant to parsing without an outside the box perspective. In one sense, the complaints which were drafted by Qwyrxian and endorsed by Bobthefish2 define the ambit of this RfC; but it also encompasses a bit more. This RfC is like a box -- or a trap. Some of my comments and answers which address these issues are indeed "inside the box" Qwyrxian devised. However, in the process of re-framing the issues in ways that seem constructive, some of the misleading elements of Qwyrxian's schema begin to fall away. Might have been This response demonstrates an active investment in the kinds of issues this RfC might have been about. My words show a readiness to work with others in converting the venue into a useful exercise 1. This RfC is not really about me. This could have been about helping me discern ways to do better. FACT: It is not. 2. This RfC is not about examining what went wrong in the collaborative editing of two controversial articles. This might have been more narrowly focused and forward-looking. FACT: It is not. There is no acknowledgment of the specific questions which are presented below. Emphasis on the specific — Questions Questions Questions I ask when I read the body of this RfC include: A. In specific, what could I have done differently at any specific point? B. In specific, what should I have avoided at any specific point? C. In specific, how could I have parsed perceived options differently at any specific point? D. In specific, what unidentified options were overlooked at any specific point? E. In specific, what worked? What didn't? Why? F. In specific, what illustrated good judgment? bad judgment? 3. This RfC is not about resolving any issues Qwyrxian lists as problems. This should have been about developing constructive outcomes. FACT: It is not. There is no acknowledgment of the explicit counter-arguments which are summarized below. Emphasis on the explicit — Response to "desired outcome" Response to "desired outcome" As a general rule, people prefer positive statements to negative ones, but this RfC severely limits my options. I see no alternative but to reject the implied premise of each element of the "desired outcome" section of this RfC. If I do not explicitly deny each of the false claims, this cascade failure will be made worse. The unjustified allegations will evolve as a cluster of self-fulfilling prophesies. Qwyrxian crammed a lot into four bullets (72 words) and one paragraph (128 words). In response, a significant investment of time and a great many more words are needed to identify the flawed underlying premises and to refute them. The process of analysis, refutation and counter-argument will require more time and sentences than the 200 words Qwyrxian wrote. In the context of this RfC, I am not the one who created a "desired outcome" which is both complicated and skewed; but I am willing to respond to what has been presented. Table format -- Parsing the accusations in "desired outcomes" The array of rows and lines in this table's matrix reflect a complexity which this RfC contrives for destructive purposes only. The time and effort invested in preparing this table demonstrate a meaningful and measured response. This table represents a reasonable effort to convert this RfC into something constructive. Table format -- Parsing "desired outcomes" Implied Negative premise Flawed premise rejected Positive re-framing A. Tenmei will cease treating Wikipedia as a battleground to push an agenda I invest my best efforts in working collaboratively; and at the same time, it remains axiomatic that verifiable "fact" as defined by WP:V + WP:RS is not equivalent to a passionately asserted "factoid" which has no verified support. A1 presumes -- treated Wikipedia as a battleground No, I have not My edits and talk-page contributions persistently demonstrate that WP:V is a necessary first step and common ground in our process of resolving perceived conflicts A2 presumes -- pushed an agenda No, I have not My edits and talk-page contributions demonstrate pro-Wikipedia agenda with an explicit focus on ensuring the credibility of our articles and the integrity of our project B. Tenmei will, after making bold changes, follow WP:BRD by seriously listening to the concerns of other editors and seeking consensus prior to re-adding the disputed information B1 presumes -- not given serious consideration to the opinions of other editors Yes, I have done Counterexample: Please try again. Your sentences are only premises or propositions without supporting follow-up. They comprise a set of undemonstrated hypotheticals. In other words, mere complaint ≠ refutation, mere complaint ≠ counterargument --Tenmei 15 Oct 2010 B2 presumes -- not sought to engage consensus-building Yes, I have done Counterexample: The graphic chart at the right informs and illustrates my thinking in this context → Parsing argument content --Tenmei 14 Oct 2010 C. Tenmei will endeavor to use simpler interactions on the talk page, including fully refraining from "framing" the discussions via charts or graphs C1 presumes -- all issues are simple. No, as illustrated by this table. QED Yes, "simpler interactions" are a desirable goal, but — Counterargument: A pivotal issue in dispute resolution is when " ... the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already" C2 presumes -- "framing" discussions is not a part of dispute resolution No, as illustrated by this table. QED Yes, "simpler interactions" are a desirable goal, but — Counterargument: The pivotal issue in our talk pages is that core policies are "framing" each thread by providing generally practical, flexible templates which were crafted to help me and others find ways (a) to escape conflict and (b) to move towards areas of identified agreement. C3 presumes -- charts and graphs are not meaningful in a way that words alone could not convey No, as illustrated by this table. QED Yes, "simpler interactions" are a desirable goal; but — Counterargument: Graphics do communicate in a way that words alone do not -- especially when people are "talking past each other", and when the participants in the thread proceed at cross purposes. There is a mismatch. In other words, the English phrase is like the Chinese idiomatic expression "chicken talking to a duck" (鸡同鸭讲|鸡同鸭讲 or 雞同鴨講|雞同鴨講) D. Tenmei will, in general, work on Wikipedia in a more collaborative spirit D1 presumes -- not exhibiting a "collaborative spirit" Yes, I have done + No, as illustrated by this table. QED Counterexample: This diff should not be construed as argumentative; rather, I hope it is understood as an attempt to engage issues relating to process rather than substance. This is a step towards addressing disagreement directly and constructively. --Tenmei 31 Oct 2010 E. Caveat E1 presumes -- there is at least one of my edits had more to do with "issues of Japanese politics" than WP:Five Pillars No, there is no diff E2 presumes -- there is at least one of my edits had more to do with "a strong POV with regards to this subject matter" than WP:Five Pillars No, there is no diff E3 presumes -- the quality of Senkaku Islands or Senkaku Islands dispute would have been enhanced if I had not participated in editing and talk page discussions No Counterexample: In other words, a mere straw poll conducted among a few active editors who demonstrate intensity of preference is not consensus and polling is not a substitute for discussion.--Tenmei 14 Feb 2011 E4 presumes -- I was not "extra careful when editing" these controversial articles Yes, I have done E5 presumes -- my edits have not been scrupulously compliant with "community norms." Yes, I have done An alternate restatement of a "Desired outcome" is needed. Balls in the air In this RfC, the so-called "evidence of disputed behavior" focuses on my writing and in part on complaints about my juggling too many balls at a one time. This RfC starts with some general presumptions about our talk page context. In other words, there is a conventional notion that an original poster serves one ball and all I have to do is strike it back. Yes, I do understand the need to keep my eye on that ball. Yes, I can see how it becomes problematic when too many other balls appear to make things complicated. In fact, sometimes things are complicated -- not because of anything I do, but because of other factors. This RfC is one relevant example. No less important, Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute are also relevant examples. Senkaku islands as context This RfC arises from an East China Sea controversy which has been actively disputed for over thirty years. In this real world dispute, all involved parties have a lot of balls in the air. This RfC arises from only two articles. Too many "balls in the air" are real issues; and this is confirmed by WP:V + WP:RS. Summary The way I write is not unrelated to the subjects I write about. In a small way, the manner in which I have parsed the so-called "desired outcomes" represents strategic thinking. The explicit unanswered questions which comprise my initial response to this RfC demonstrate a complementary tactic. The time and effort invested in considering this RfC shows care. The approach mirrors my individual and cumulative contributions at Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute. 4. This RfC proposes problems which cannot be solved within the confines of the skewed matrix Qwryxian has devised and others endorsed. FACT: This RfC is a sham as "dispute resolution". Note that the linked phrase --- highlighted in blue and in bold font -- is excerpted from the first sentence at Wikipedia:Requests for Comment. Mirrored pattern of mis-communication This malformed RfC does serve an arguably useful function as a mirror of the patterns of mis-communication and missed opportunities which have played out across six months of talk page threads. The edit history of this RfC page here exemplifies and reflects the difficulties which others have caused -- not problems attributable to my failures and mistakes. Summarizing the evolution of this page: 1st, March 2: Qwyrxian posts his paragraphs of complaints 2nd, March 4: I acknowledge Qwyrxian general concerns and I demonstrate reciprocal engagement by inviting open-ended comments about specific alternatives which might have been perceived as more helpful in the past or more effective in the future. 3rd: No constructive response -- QED 4th March 18: I acknowledge explicit criticism with explicit contradiction PLUS refutation and counterargument in the form of counter-examples presented in a table format with hyperlinks to explicit diffs. 5th: No constructive response -- QED 6th April 1: I try again in different words and in a different format. Thus far, this RfC is only about Talking past each other (鸡同鸭讲 or 雞同鴨講). Users who endorse this summary: Tenmei (talk) 09:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Outside the box An objective analysis of my participation in our Wikipedia project is open for inspection at any time -- see Tenmei, edit count/pie chart. In this overview, the protective veil of anonymity is scrupulously maintained. In Tenmei's record of contributions, there is no support for the inferred nationality which Bobthefish2 and Qwyrxian and others assert. When they identify me as Japanese, it is a code word gambit or a trope which is only intended to devalue and marginalize. This is among the lessons learned the hard way. Unlike me, Qwyrxian has elected to reveal a few personal details. He is an American living in Japan. In that cultural context, an apology is understood to be a useful part of dispute resolution. An apology focuses attention in a seemly way. Please excuse any inconvenience or annoyance my unintentional clumsiness may have caused. Excuse me (すみません Sumimasen) This RfC incorporated a great many presumptions and some bad faith assumptions which are ungenerous and unmerited. With regret, I note that Qwyrxian complains about many things. In my failure to agree with his conclusory allegations, I regret that my words might have been construed to mean that I am disinterested in the constructive opinions of others. I'm sorry if my misjudgment exacerbated problems which might have been mitigated by different words. Will it help to explain that causing complaints was not my intention? Please help me find better ways to disagree mildly while at the same time showing a cooperative, non-confrontational attitude. Please help me discern how I may avoid appearing to be too stubborn to listen to others. I do not want to appear to be unwilling to accept, to evaluate and to act on the complaints or advice or suggestions of others. If any cause for offense might have been ameliorated, please point this out. Please show me where my words could have avoided seeming hostile or accusatory. My sincere desire is to demonstrate integrity, honesty and good faith in writing. With regret, I feel compelled to state that some parts of this RfC are mere posturing; but this does not blind me to prospective teachable moments which may yet develop. I'm sorry that the formality of my writing will persist. In life, I am somewhat formal; and this can't be helped. The genesis of this RfC had nothing to do with ensuring the academic integrity of our Wikipedia project. This sad fact is underscored by the absence of follow-through. In contrast, my reaction to these complaints has everything to do with the hortatory goals summarized in WP:Five Pillars. My "inside the box" and "outside the box" responses demonstrate thoughtful engagement in this RfC. --Tenmei (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inside view from John Smith's

I'm not an outside view by any stretch of the imagination, as I have participated in talk page discussions with Tenmei. I have found his posts somewhat difficult to understand at times, which can also be sometimes somewhat redundant.

However, I cannot agree with Nick-D's view that a ban is warranted, because it is not Tenmei's editing that is the problem. That would be punishing him for his less than perfect English language skills. I think that he might benefit from a mentor to help him restructure his posts, possibly someone who shares his first language. He is intelligent, but I suspect he doesn't understand why we find his messages difficult to understand/read sometimes. Because of this, I don't think that he does uses Wikipedia as a battleground to push an agenda. I think that he is just putting forward his opinion, in line with his understanding of Wikipedia policy/guidance.

Also, whilst I think that Qwyrxian is acting out of good intentions, I'm not sure whether Bobthefish2 is the right person to "second" this RfCU. I note that Jmh649 had already suggested that there is a lack of good faith on his part. Bob and Tenmei do not get on in the slightest.

Tenmei does have things to add, such as helpful sources. He just needs to rework his style on the talk pages somewhat.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. John Smith's (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Having reviewed a dozen pages on all this - this is not even particularly worthy of an RFC/U in the first place. Tenmai has rough edges. That about sums it up. WP:AGF is good advice for Bob. Collect (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. And User:Collect is spot on, the RFC/U seems unjustified. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Outside view by Nick-D

The comments about Tenmei's conduct made by Qwyrxian seem to be a recurrence of what was covered at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty. Tenmei was sanctioned by ArbCom for his or her conduct in matters covered by that case, and has a long history of similar conduct (see, for instance Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer/Archive 1 from 2008 for an example I was involved in). His or her failure to cease this clearly unacceptable behavior is of great concern, and I think that we may need to consider a block or even ban (though I note that these can't be applied directly through RfCs) as it is severely disruptive and the previous attempts to intervene seem to not have been successful.

John Smith, in regards to your suggestion that Tenmei be assigned a mentor, this was actually one of the rulings of the arbitration case. From memory, he or she actually had several mentors for a period. It doesn't seem to have helped as Tenmei has returned to the same behaviour. Nick-D (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Minimac (talk) 08:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Jmh649(Doc James) One of Tenmei's Mentors

1. Agree that Tenmei uses atypical English language and that he should work harder to use a more normal vocabulary. One of my concerns is the lack of good faith shown by User:Bobthefish2 [15] and as demonstrated in the above text. As Wikipedia works hard to broaden the background of those who edit we will need to be more not less tolerate of language differences. This comment amounts to a personal attack by Bobthefish2 [16] with line like "Multiple individuals (including admins) told him to write in normal English -> Refused" and "Can you tell me what User:Tenmei had actually contributed? If my memory serves, almost every notable edit he made eventually had to be extensively cleaned up or deleted." References for accusations such as this are required.
2. Tenmei follows WP:V and WP:RS. He has added most of the references to many of the articles under discussion. If the article is than not WP:NPOV the solution is not to delete well referenced and verifiable content but to add content that represents other POVs. If one looks at this set of edits [17] one sees Tenmei adding three references to a section of unreferenced text. None of which looks controversial.
3. Have looked at the diffs Bob has put forth: This "I understand you have a fascination for your particular type of linguistic style, but even scientific publications written in English do not follow such a convoluted style of communication." does not appear particularly helpful. Unclear how this addresses a problem WRT Tenmei "Do you think you can gently converse with him on how his aggressive behaviour can be detrimental to the editorial process of Wikipedia? After all, the two of you share the same native language and appear to exchange e-mails." Or how it supports "He appears to have ignored the request." Both of the links in this diff deal with Tenmei's language ability. And are not as stated "Invited Tenmei to wrap up an existing dispute"

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. John Smith's (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ

I am a person who has argued extensively against Bobthefish2 before, and I can say that he is free of ultranationalist/ethnocentric views, on the the Boxer Rebellion talk page he argued extensively against me, against the Chinese POV, on the other hand, as i take a look at Tenmei's behavior, i can say that it consists of Japanese ultranationalism, baiting other users and annoying them to the point of causing them to lash out in anger, while pretending to be civil. This has absolutely nothing to do with Tenmei's english language skills, rather, his habit of yanking obscure quotes and placing them on peoples talk pages, wording them in a condescending manner can be seen as a deliberate attempt to piss off the recipient. The points brought up be User:Jmh649 and User:John Smith that Tenmei follows rules on sourcing etc. is totally irrelavant, in regards to his insulting behavior. If an insulting troll made constructive edits, following WP:RS, yet harrased and insulted other users on their talk pages, he would be banned. I would not be suprised if some of Bobthefish2's hostility to Tenmei arose from provocations in the forms of Tenmei's irrelevant quotes and bringing up of totally ridiculous solutions, in addition to Tenmei's projection of Japanese nationalism.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. This is a good summary of the problems with Tenmei's editing. Tenmei has made valuable contributions, but seems unable to interact in a civil fashion with other editors, with this being displayed by agressive (and often incomprehensible) talk page posts, apparant use of the WP:CHUNK approach to shut down discussions and edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely uninvolved outside view by Ajl772

Glancing over the talk pages of many of the people mentioned in or contributing to this RFC/U (as of this writing), I believe that the issue does not lie specifically to just Tenmei. There have been cases (as I see it) of incivility on both sides/all side of this issue, so I am not entirely positive that addressing Tenmei's behavior alone will solve the issue.

1. Ajl772 (talk • contribs • email) 09:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Note: If anyone would like me to be more specific by providing diffs, or expand more upon my view, I can be, but as it is late at night where I am located, I do not wish to spend a great deal of time on this.[reply]
2. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. John Smith's (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Minimac (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. likely true. Collect (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Seems like a nationalistic dispute where one side tries to railroad the other without having much more in the way of "clean hands". And to preempt the concern raised by Collect below: I wasn't canvassed. Tenmei's warnings to others are quite amusing, although this is probably not intentional. I hope this creates a teachable moment. :D Tijfo098 (talk) 06:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by HXL49

Though I have interacted with Tenmei in a dispute, my participation on the Senkaku Islands page can hardly be described as being entrenched, as described by Bob here. To me, it was pretty clear from only a few instances of such behaviour on my and others' talk pages that Tenmei has a bad penchant for Wiki-lawyering; his "warnings" are thankfully not as stern as they can be, partly due to his not-native English proficiency. Ok, besides that point... From that warning, he gave me the impression of assuming that I hold any strong opinions on this and other islands disputes. He is wrong. In reality, I could really care less about who owns these otherwise (entirely) insignificant islands. Posts like this are evidence of Tenmei's preacher attitude that I have rarely seen anyone else, even those I dislike more, do. It is the (what I see as over-zealous) attitudes of users like him that has forced me to turn away from that page; what I intended to be a mere language issue morphed into a politicised one. Otherwise, I would be more willing to chime in occasionally.

1. HXL's Roundtable and Record 23:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely outside concern by uninvolved Collect

I note that more than twenty editors were apparently contacted for the RFC/U. There is a real and specific concern that unless the notices were done without any regard at all for conflicts with the subject, that WP:CANVASS may have been violated. There is a list of ArbCom principles about this sort of problem at WP:False consensus which should be considered.

1. Collect (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2.  – Ajl^talk 04:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. John Smith's (talk) 10:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. That is very troubling, and may have poisoned the well. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Canvassing sucks - immensely. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by uninvolved Beeblebrox

I find the "evidence of trying to resolve the dispute" unimpressive. Especially [18] in which this RFCU is held over Tenmei's head as a threat. These goal of an RFCU is to come to a mutually agreeable voluntary solution to an unresolved problem. It is not a court and Tenmei is not on trial. RFCU is generally the last stop before ArbCom, if this effort fails to arrive at a solution I seriously doubt ArbCom would accept a case.

1. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4.  – Ajl^talk 16:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion of Tijfo098

Although I suspect there are some cultural as well as language barriers here, I hope that Tenmei learns from this RfC/U to communicate in a way that that appears less strenuously formal/pompous and frankly arrogant, although it's hard to ascertain how much of that is incidental. The other side of this dispute should probably take home the message that over the top incriminatory language vaguely reminiscent of (movies of) the Cultural Revolution, even when doused with all the right wiki-jargon, is likely to undermine their case. All your island are belong to us.

1. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions of Taemyr

• Tenmeis discussion style often fails to bring his point across. Although arguably no fault of Tenmei it does serve as a poor starting point for discussion and is ultimatly disruptive.
• Tenmei consistently pushes for "reliable sources" that argue a pro-japan point of view, and consistently downplays other asian sources. This is a clear example of tendentious editing.
• There is no evidence that the above is a result of bad faith on the part of Tenmei.
  • In particular instances drawn forth as exhibiting "battleground mentality" and "uncivililty" can usualy be explained if we choose to belive that Tenmei expects people to understand his arguments.
  • However ultimately bad faith/good faith is secondary to the fact that he is disruptive.

1. Taemyr (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC) I hope to be able to provide diffs to support my claims about, however I might not get the time to do so. [reply]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.