Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks  Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Tenmei's argument is three-pronged and all fallicious. Firstly, he argues that my source 1) violates WP:V and "confuses" WP:CITE with WP:V 2) violates WP:BURDEN, by not "providing a translation for every citation to a foreign-language source". 3) violates WP:RS and is inaccurate and is not a credible source. I shall take a minute to refute all these absurd claims before moving on to discuss Tenmei's behaviour.

This entire dispute started with this diff diff, in which Tenmei deleted all the work I have done on the article because he said it "may not be credible".From what I gather, Tenmei argues that my source is unverifiable because it is "unaccessible", in his words. In addition, he argues that I did not comply with WP:V because "others did not have the oppurtunity to examine the text". diffdiff. I suggest he read WP:V. WP:V is verifiability in principle, not for every reader. Tenmei seems to be unable to understand that as he regularly removes "inaccessible information" which is sourced diff. A simple review of WP:V clears up the requirements needed to fulfill WP:V:

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[nb 1] The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article.[nb 2] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.

Thus, I have not violated WP:V in any way. On the contary, it is Tenmei, who's lack of knowledge about the policy that violated this long-standing policy.

As for another one of Tenmei's absurd claims, that all foreign language sources must provide a long and complete translation for every citation. it is shown to be absurd. Editors on the WP:RS noticeboard have interpeted it to be that only a direct translation requires a quote of the original text, as shown below.

• Norwegian sources
• French sources

This is further confirmed by this paragraph from WP:V.

Because this is the English Wikipedia, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source has been used correctly. Where editors translate a direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.

(bolding mine).

Although previous doubts about the source were raised, but it was deemed reliable by the community, as shown by this link diff . In this link, the WP:RS editors showed that the source should be accepted, despite the fact that many editors cannot access it's contents. This is because of two reasons: 1) WP:V is verifiability in principle, not for every reader and 2) A willingness to assume WP:AGF(as long as an editor provides the source with the required information, it should be accepted unless shown otherwise). Thus, just like I said at the RfAr, as long as the source is provided with all the necessary information and is not wrong, it should be accepted.

The source in question is a history book published in China from a reputable publisher in that country. Its authors have published several similar books before and after(this is is an annual publication, I have the 1998 version).

The informaiton in this article is not only verified by my source, but also three others:

• http://books.google.com/books?id=J7fFhc2VM5sC&pg=PA145&dq=Tang+Xueyantuo&lr=&ei=LWbZSdDnA6G2zQSbvozACA#PPA144,M1, Marc Samuel Abramson, Ethnic identity in Tang China, ISBN 9780812240528,
• Book of Tang, "http://www.njmuseum.com/rbbook/gb/25/xingtanshu/xts.htm"
• Zizhi Tongjian, "http://www.guoxue.com/shibu/zztj/zztjml.htm"

The accuracy of the information in the article is also confirmed by a notable editor, Pericles of Athens. He has recently found information from another source "China's Imperial Past" in which he confirmed the information in the article(and the source in question) is correct, as shown by these diffs diff. diff diff.

In addition, the book is discoverable in WorldCat- a simple click on WorldCat found this for the book, verifying what I've already said- worldcat search for isbn:7204044207 As a further proof of this book's reliability, it is found in the National Library of China, at Beijing.

In fact, before I started editing the article, the article had several reliable sources but they were removed by Tenmei because they were "unaccessible" and the contents they sourced deleted::::* diff diff diff diff. This disruption shows that Tenmei is the one who needs to learn about WP:RS, rather than myself.

If there is one issue worthy of being dealt with here, it is Tenmei's inability to communicate and work with other editors. This user has edit warred and repeatedly violated consensus. Other editors have expressed concerns about this, but it was ignored by him. This kind of behaviour deserves strong sanctions from ArbCom.

Tenmei, despite his lack of knowledge on the subject, is very tentedious and engages in long, difficult-to-understand arguments that disrupt the consensus. As shown here, other editors have raised concerns about this:

diff diff

Lately he even engaged in vandalism in an absurd proposal to merge Salting the earth with inner asia during the Tang dynasty. diff

In addition, Tenmei treats other editors with disrespect, striking out their comments. He also does not understand several key wikipedia policies, such as WP:Point. This is perhaps best illustrated here: diff diff

Tenmei also seems to have a troubled history on wikipedia, as evidenced here: diff diff diff diff diff

Other editors warned about his incivility, disruption, and even vandalism here: diff diff diff diff diff diff

Recently, he referred to fellow editors as "ilk" and decleared that edit warring was the "only practable way to proceed", as shown here: diff

He also has a history of dealing with others in bad faith and incivilly, as shown by a comment here: diff.

Here he accused another editor of being in a "conspiracy" diff. Here he called another editor a "long-term toxic warrior", diffdiff. Here I was called a long term toxic warrior by him. diff.

In addition, here he created an attack page against one of the editors involved because he gave evidence unfavorable to Tenmei.diff.diff.

Even he admitted he was unable to work with WP:CONSENSUS, as shown here:diff

Rather than seek consensus with other editors such as me, Pericles, Arilang1234, and Kraftlos, Tenmei used the dispute resolution system to hound other editors into submission and as a tool to get his way. He has also engaged in canvassing. I believed these views are best summarized by the below diffs: diff diff

He has tried this tactic before to get his way in a dispute with user:Nick Dowling: diff diff

Simply put, Tenmei does not have any ability to communicate and work with other editors. Even the simplest conversation get tied up into WP:TLDR threads(seen in his evidence section and workshop) Questions to him and explanations rarely are answered, or if so, answered with a "non-answer", so to speak.

Tenmei even refused to answer my questions at workshop and provide evidence to me, shown by these diffs: He justified not answering my question by calling them "Straw men" and declearing them to be "gambits". In short, instead of getting an answer, I received several personal attacks. diff diff. Here he insults an editor and instead of answering the editor's question, engages in personal attacks: diff

Tenmei even accused me and other editors of being part of a "PRC-sponsered attack", here: diff. diff.diff. He justifies deleting my source through this reason, even though he acknowledge it was correctly cited.

Introduction. Conflation of issues is a common theme in archived ArbCom cases -- no less in this case than in Franco-Mongol_alliance or PHG. I initiated this ArbCom case to address three narrowly-focused issues which were sometimes conflated in the broader context of a fourth. In the alternative, Teeninvestor seeks to leverage or re-frame my temerity as the sole issue, conflating all issues into perceived problems with my "behaviour."

Teeninvestor cast a wide net to find evidence, investing more time in searching for "evidence" to discredit me than in trying to identify common ground. I don't understand why this wasn't wrongful WP:Canvassing; but it doesn't matter because Teeninvestor tactic proved to be unexpectedly beneficial. It helped me in re-focusing attention on the arc of my contributions. What matters most are the ways in which the quality of my contributions have been improved by participating in disputes, no less than what I have learned from other Wikipedia experiences.

The measure of ArbCom's success will play out in whatever manages to improve the quality of future contributions from the participants in this case. The initial layout of issues from my perspective is seemly and on point.

In my view, ArbCom's goal is to articulate and explain Wikipedia policies which provide a context in which an article is created.

ArbCom intervention is needed because attempts to assert WP:V as a point of common agreement became an illustration of temerity. This ArbCom case begins with the temerity documented in the following:

• 1-A. 02:52, 14 March Tenmei added "synthesis"-headnote and "original research"-headnote
• 1-B. 02:54, 14 March Tenmei added "dubious"-tag at end of 4th-¶
• 1-C. 02:54, 14 March Tenmei added "dubious"-tag at end of 3rd-¶
• 1-D. 02:55, 14 March Tenmei added "dubious"-tag at end of 2nd-¶
• 1-E. 02:58, 14 March Tenmei deleted "unsourced, unverifiable text" from 1st-¶
• 1-F 03:24, 14 March Tenmei added Dubious posting: inconsistent with WP:V
• 1-G. 03:25, 14 March Tenmei deleted "deleting material incompatible with WP:V--see talk"
• 1-H. 00:34, 15 March Teeninvestor reverts DELETING A SOURCE YOU DONT AGREE WITH IS WIKI:NPOV

The edit summary above attributes an inappropriate or improper POV as the explanation for my allegedly wrongful edits.

The edit summary below complains instead about deletions which are construed as unexplained, implying my passive failure to provide data with which to form an opinion, but also implying a pro-active campaign to exacerbate a dispute in which conventional wisdom is likely to adduce that "it takes two to tango":

• 1-I TALK 20:47, 16 March 2009 "The point is that you are disrupting an article and deleting text without explanation ...."
• 1-J TALK 20:49, 16 March 2009 "... deleted large, sourced sections without explanation."
• 1-K 3RR 01:13, 17 March "... repeatedly deleted content without explanation ...."
• 1-L TALK 01:19, 17 March "... reverted sourced, verifiable material without explanation."
• 1-M 3RR 11:26, 17 March "... reverted without explanation."

Teeninvestor has variously construed my edits -- and indeed my attempt to use the dispute resolution system -- as a kind of effrontery, as played out in this short exchange:

• 1-N 3:05, 15 March Tenmei posted creating "Zero information ..." sub-section of thread
• 1-O 16:06, 15 March Teeninvestor posted "Done. Sourced with page numbers."
• 1-P 16:12, 15 March Teeninvestor posted "This is passive obstructionism."
• 1-Q 16:16, 15 March Teeninvestor posted "You JUST VIOLATED WP:CONSENSUS, MY friend."

The question for ArbCom becomes one of suggesting alternate strategies which could have mitigated this evolving problem? Whatever happened, it wasn't caused by something which can be adduced from within the unfolding diffs above.

WP:V incorporating WP:Burden rejected by Teeninvestor -- diff.

Two adjacent diffs -- [1] and [2] -- are linked in Teeninvestor's complaints about my alleged "disruptive behavior." A cursory review of the edit history refutes this hollow complaint.

[[:File:Tertiary source 144.jpg|thumb|right|90px|One sentence: "He took the title, 'Heavenly Khan, thus designating himself as their ruler." at page 144 in Latourette, Kenneth Scott. (1934). The Chinese: Their History and Culture. New York: Macmillan. OCLC 220885107.]] The subject of the following is WP:V incorporating WP:Burden:

• STEP 2-A: Non-standard citation format -- diff

• STEP 2-B: Difficult-to-parse text -- diff; diff

• STEP 2-C: References -- diff

• STEP 2-D: Inadequate citation -- diff; diff; diff; diff

• STEP 2-E Tang Taizong did not give khagan title to himself -- diff; diff; diff; diff

• STEP 2-F Ethnic affiliations of the Khitan -- diff

• STEP 2-G Storm in a teacup -- diff; diff

Teeninvestor's accusation falls apart under closer scrutiny.

In contrast, G Purevdorj observed that while most of the Mongolia work group just perceived the vandalism and were flabbergasted that they were alone in doing so, your involvement at least managed to provoke evidence that is obvious for anyone to see.

The question for ArbCom becomes one of suggesting alternate strategies which could have mitigated this evolving problem?

WP:RSUE incorporating WP:Burden rejected by Teeninvestor -- here. The subject of the following is WP:RSUE incorporating WP:Burden:

Summary:

• 3-A. March 16 -- diff: Teeninvestor claims that text was verified -- simple past tense
• 3-B. March 27 -- diff: not verified
• 3-C. April 8 -- diff: not verified
• 3-D. April 22 -- diff: not verified

For redundant clarity, these diffs demonstrate that it was not disruptive to seek further clarification, as I have felt compelled to do -- even to the point of initiating this ArbCom case in the absence of any other practicable option.

The question for ArbCom becomes one of suggesting alternate strategies which could have mitigated this evolving problem?

Issues identified above became conflated in real-world disputes, e.g.,

• 4-A. "article is a battlefield"?
• 4-B. "Mongols have hijacked [[Mongolia during Tang rule]]"?
• 4-D. "this can show that mongolia was owned by chinese before mongols ever appeared, and belongs to china"?
• 4-E. "i am pro REpublic of China and affirming republic of china claim to mongolia"?
• 4-F. "vain attempts to create a supposedly "Mongolian" identity, considering Mongolia itself was a Russian creation"?

The title of Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty suggests something to do with the history of 7th-8th century Central Asia, but an unexplained backstory or subtext intruded in the development of the article. Problems encountered in this article are emblematic of problems affecting unrelated editors and articles.

Teeninvestor argues that these issues are mooted by subsequent edits -- diff.

Teeninvestor proposes changing the article name to Tang-Gokturk wars -- diff.

The question for ArbCom becomes one of suggesting alternate strategies which could have mitigated this evolving problem?

ArbCom's purpose are fulfilled when the process affects more than just the parties' concerns and issues. WP:V and academic integrity must be an indispensable priority because, unlike "simple" incivility, the potential damage destroys the credibility of our encyclopedia. --Tenmei (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very familiar with arbitration, so I pre-emptively ask for forgiveness if I violate any formalities.

While it seems Teeninvestor understands WP:VERIFY (like here), he has several times failed to show understanding of WP:RS. Although the latter is just a guideline as opposed to a policy, I think it is quite crucial to Wikipedia's quality. Its sixth sentence reads "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." (Emph. mine).

In a small edit war, Teeninvestor has several times added maps from Commons as "sourced":

• [3]
• [4].

He has justified the re-addition of removed text with "Links provided prove that the book exists."

• [5].

When asked, he was unable to point out why the authors of the source he used most often (more than 50% of the citations in the current article) should be "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". In fact, I get the impression he knows nothing about the authors of said source.

• [6].

I don't think that "You don't have any source to show that my source is wrong" (My inference from Teeninvestor's proposed principles for this arbitration, [7], [8]) is enough to establish the reliability of a source. In any case I therefore reject these two proposed principles I just linked to.

Yaan (talk) 10:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not had any involvement in the Tang Dynasty article, but Teeninvestor (who I don't think that I've had any previous contact with and have no comments on) placed a note on my talk page noting that I'd been involved with Tenmei previously and asking what my opinion of them is. As I'm mentioned in his statement under my previous user name of Nick Dowling I'll comment on his comments on Tenmei's behavior; I have no views on the other issues under discussion in this RfA.

I was one of several editors involved in a dispute with Tenmei over the Hyūga class helicopter destroyer‎ article (the essence of which can still be seen at: Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer). On the basis of this experience I endorse Teeninvestor's comments on Tenmei's behavior, and can confirm that the details he posted relating to the dispute on this article are correct. In this dispute Tenmei created a massive mountain out a molehill concerning a single sentance by posting vast and uncivil messages in which he never actually explained his position, despite repeated requests that he did so. He deliberetly sat out the process of developing consensus text on the issue in question and, in a clear WP:POINT violation, 'reset' (his word) the debate after consensus text had been endorsed by all the other involved editors ([9]). Despite the involvement of several other editors Tenmei personalised this dispute on me in a manner which, to be frank, I found disturbing. An attempt at mediation initiated by Tenmei collapsed before it began when I withdrew after he started canvassing against me with a highly disruptive editor - this obviously wasn't a sign of good faith! ([10]). Following this Tenmei continued his peronalisation of the conflict upon me by attempting to start a RfA on me, which was swiftly rejected by Arbcom.

Tenmei was warned against his behavior over this article repeated times ([11], [12], [13], [14], [15] and [16] are a few examples). As he has continued his highly disruptive pattern of posting vast quantities of text in arguments, making uncivil comments and personalising disputes ArbCom should consider imposing sanctions on Tenmei if this RfA is accepted. Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As with Nick-D I've no previous involvement with the Tang Dynasty article or this latest content dispute which involves Tenmei. I am responding here to a note placed on my talk page indicating that an ArbCom case had been filed and that, owing to my previous interactions with the filing party – in particular on Hyūga class helicopter destroyer where I attempted to mediate within an ongoing content dispute – my views on Tenmei's behaviour would be of assistance to the case and to the Committee.

It is my experience that Tenmei means well in his/her approach to editing on the project; a number of articles have been improved in line with content guidelines, most notably WP:V, and the work of this editor must be considered - in my opinion – with WP:AGF in mind. I am without a doubt certain that Tenmei is guided by an underlying desire to better the encyclopaedia. The problems seem to develop during interaction with other community members.

While Tenmei seems guided by high standards in terms of editing content, s/he also seems unable to engage with the process of consensus building in a fashion which would yield an effective outcome. Tenmei has been warned[17] about obstructing the process of consensus building – which I witnessed in an attempt to ‘reset’ discussion, for example - and for refusing to present arguments in Plain English preferring an overly elaborate and convoluted presentation of views which could be considered disruptive editing – a behavioural guideline which covers any “campaign to drive away productive contributors...that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.” Other editors have commented on this also, for example here and at ANI.

While I have no knowledge of the current case, and would wager that this is rather another content dispute which needs to go through dispute resolution rather than waste the time of the ArbCom, I do believe that – despite good editing intentions and strict adherence to content policies – Tenmei’s inability to engage with his/her fellow editors is of concern and may therefore be of separate but relevant interest to the Committee. Coldmachine^Talk 22:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no prior history editing in the topic at hand. I was contacted by Teeninvestor to make a statement. I'll put it simply and more civilly than I have elsewhere:

• Tenmei means well.
• Tenmei (like myself) is argumentative, obstinate, and sometimes snarky.
• Unlike myself, he is quick to resort to mediation, arbitration, (etc.) seemingly to the point where I would almost consider it "abuse of the system".
• It is my personal opinion that he frequently edits on topics he knows little-to-nothing about, and does not heed the advice of people who know better. In the small portion of his edits that I have looked at, there have been a number of grievous errors.
• Many of his edits are well-sourced but unproductive, IMO, plaguing Wikipedia with Wikipedia:Too_long;_didn't_read, like his comments that you see above. His edits often reduce the readability of Wikipedia significantly, even when they are factually correct. Use of tl;dr to "win" arguments seems to be part of his M.O.
• For the most part I have given up trying to correct errors and tl;dr in his articles because I don't need the inevitable hassle.
• As I'm largely ignorant of Chinese history I hesitate to say who is "correct" in the matter of the article at hand, but if references have been provided, and an "expert" has looked at the article and approved of it, then there shouldn't be a problem in making the statement. Using multilingual people from around the world to bring expertise from other languages into English Wikipedia is one of the great benefits of the system. It looks like English references have also been provided, so what's the problem? Bueller 007 (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not screen the book in any way. What I did was merely translated the page linked at the time. The page is a description from a Chinese on-line bookstore.

My statement posted needs to be taken as literally as possible; the information I provided was merely information gained from translating the description of the on-line bookstore.

And to be specific: I did not look at any text of the book itself; I cannot judge whether it is actually a history book without actually looking at the book.

Thus, I feel that Teeninvestor may have misconstrued my original statement. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tenmei wants to focus on the alleged misuse of sources by Teeninvestor, given his contact to Arbitrator Coren two days before he initiated the case. However, as I said before, he made a huge mistake; listing uninvolved editors and 3O commentators as involved ones because they all criticized him. However, he excluded main disputers from the Central Asia project. The dispute initially started off with the the mutual nationalistic agenda: (3, 4, 5, 6, 7) Not to mention, the sockpuppet's disruption to the AFD, the latter group's canvassing and Tenmei's tag-teaming, bickering and edit waring are all disruptive; (1, 2). Oddly a recent motion attracted "officially uninvolved editors" who have been quiet about the ArbCom. They are almost inactive because the article title is changed to exclude "Mongolia" that can provoke nationalism.

Since this crux is missing, Tenmei's struggling to make WP:POINT (revising content policies solely based on his own definition) as well as attacking on Teeninvestor (talk · contribs) and editors are going nowhere but like a RfC/U on Tenmei'. Tenmei's failed WP:GAME reinforces that kind of ill-practice is not his first one.

I'm totally uninvolved and have tried not to be part of the dispute, largely because I fear revenge campaigns by editors who have relentlessly harassed me for 7 months to 9 months; one is the abusive sockpuppeter and the other is Tenmei (talk · contribs). Unlike the banned user, Tenmei has been lurking my activity and pounces back whenever he seizes a moment. By documenting Tenmei's harassment and Wikihound, I expect the ArbCom stop Tenmei' making further damage and prevent him from harassing others.

On April 25. I briefly commented to a Teeninvestor's proposal, and then Tenmei resumed to attack me unlike to others' comments, and went to some admin to harass me again regardless of my previous stern warning to him on the same page. So if he did not poke on me, I may have just commented to the Workshop regardless Teeninvestor's repeated requests. Teeninverstor believes that I have a very strong case to prove Tenmei's long disruption.(1, 2)

When the Tang dispute occurred, as PericlesofAthens' warned Tenmei, I also noticed that Tenmei began hounding Teenivester just like he did to me. However, if I would report his second 3RR violation (he scorned my AGF on his previous violation) in my observation, he might've focused on me regardless of the fact that I did not edit the article at all because I've been marked as his enemy along with admin LordAmeth and Nick-D on Tenmei's user page. I naively thought that if my favorable statement for Tenmei on this arbcom, his wikihounding of me will be decreased and he'd learn how to communicate with others. However I was totally wrong on that. He even proposed a motion to include me as a party with his conspiracy theory and mocked me.

I first encountered Tenmei for a merge discussion which was supposed to have no controversy, but he suddenly without any reason attacked my ethnicity and taunted my ancestors and my edits to other articles totally irrelevant of the subject. Then he preposterously nominated the article in ongoing discussion to AfD, and demonized me during the whole AfD discussion. LordAmeth who was in the merge discussion and has observed him for a long time, gave him a long warning and suggested me to take the matter to ANI. After some research, Tenmei has harassed not only me but also admin Nick-D and other editors for similar obscure reasons: WP:V. However, just like Nick-D's ANI report on Tenmei, my report did not make him changed a bit because of his too lengthy and unintelligible ramblings. Since then I have had to endure Tenmei's harassment and trolling.--Caspian blue 01:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:ANI Archive471#User:Tenmei's abusing AfD and personal attacks and WP:AfD/Joseon tongsinsa from 23 August 2008 to 4 September 2008

  Collection of Tenmei's ad hominem attacks at the AfD

[Analysis] He brought up totally irrelevant issues to the AfD, and mocked not only my ethnicity and contribution, but also Comfort women by intentionally and repeatedly referring to them in Korean transliteration (harsh melée flowing from "Ilbongun wianbu") so that I could be the only one to perceive the contempt. His dependence to "racist attacks" and ad hominen attacks are repeating in the ArbCom case too. His TDLR method prevented him from any sanction, and gave him more chance to continue attacking me on ANI

• Talk:Yonsei/move?#Rename this page Yonsei (disambiguation) on Nov. 14, 2008

  From User:Tenmei...both engineered a novel tactic and a wiki-neologism to describe it -- a "hoax redirect." WP:HOAX ..This user's limited grasp of English usage...Yonsei -- was created and populated with spurious links....inexplicable post hoc hoax links....post hoc....deliberately trod in a rough-shod fashion over consensus-building niceties.......nothing but a contrived gambit....the perverse charade which unfolded at...diff

[Analysis] The Yonsei page has been a DAB based on "consensus" and "Primary Topic" regardless of Tenmei's insistence and harassment. He later concealed his false allegations and personal attacks by collapsing them in the table. He still continues such behaviors in the ArbCom case.--Caspian blue 14:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• More to come

Temei was irrelevant of my discussions with below listed users but chased me down to ensue his harassment.

• User 1 (me, Tenmei) on on Oct. 20, 2008
• User 2 (me, Tenmei) on Nov. 2, 2008
• User 3 (Tenmei, [18]) on Nov. 5, 2008
• User 4 [19]
• User 5
• User 6 on 2009-04-01 to 2009-05-03 (Tenmei's admission of his wikihounding and wikilawyering of me for more than 3 times, my warning to Tenmei on 2009-04-08, Tenmei's response, on the date, Tenmei's harassment another attempt on 2009-04-25, same attempt on 2009-05-02, on 2009-05-03

and many others.

• Tenmei's obsession and trolling as acting like a messenger of my news to editors. (see edit summary; "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.")12345678910

• I'm very sick and tired of Tenmei's persistent obsession with me and agenda of hunting me down. He has canvassed today to editors' talk pages[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] where he previously wikistalked my edits, and harassed me regardless of the fact that he was all irrelevant of my discussion with them. The current ArbCom enforcement on him is purely due to his disruption and incivility to the article in question but he still tries to antagonaize me all over the place. He gloated with sending messages of my activity and mocked me with various insulting naming calling. Unfortunately the ArBcom does not care about his "continued harassment", and inappropriate behaviors.
• Two admins in good standing but are marked as Tenmei's enemy (just like User:Mattisse's plague list), and have expressed their concern on Tenmei. Tenmei has to see that almost all editors consider his behavior very disruptive to the community, but in his canvassing, I'm on the spot light again. He thinks that he did not do wrong. Why would the committe not regulate this kind of behavior? I do not want to meet this guy's relentless disruption any more.--Caspian blue 19:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was informed that Tenmei made an attack page against me on May 2 which was filled with horrendous ad hominem attacks and cherry picking just like Nick-D's prediction and his previous ones like 1 and 2. One of his such subpage was once deleted by B for copyvio, but he previously cherrypicked anything about me there even thought we were in no contact at that time. Tenmei harassed the admin B (talk · contribs) too.See the edit summaries. Sadly those attacks on the new page are not even new from Tenmei. One question is why he forgot to mention about his wikistalking me to WJBScribe page and the sockpuppeters blocked by my RFCU. Tenmei deserves a strong ArbCom sanction perhaps like the ArbCom case initiator[33]. His WP:GAME with the case has given more opportunities for him to harass me. Funnily his intro statement is what many editors have been talking about Tenmei. He even tries to justify his user page that attacks "his enemies" to an admin. He also visited an admin to continue his harassment. Tenmei's further gaming the system and harassment can be seen his gaming ANI report and my notification the ArbCom committee--Caspian blue 22:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:RFAR/Tang Dynasty/Workshop#2nd question for Tenmei : requested motion See his miraculous response
• WP:RFAR/Tang_Dynasty/Workshop#7th question for Tenmei regarding "contradicton" See his answer

Tenmei has gradually added more allegations which are much beyond his initial statement. Tenmei obviously takes my statement as his inspiration, such as quoting some user's ArbCom case, a list of articles that use the Chinese book[34][35], RS board and the sockpupper's activities, etc.. At the same time, Tenmei is constantly checking my other activity to get out of the valid criticism on Tenmei's disruption, raised by editors. He does not care about improving the article at all nor listen to criticism on him. Moreover, it is contradictory that Tenmei accuses Teeninvestor of canvassing given his own canvassing to many unrelated editors[36][37][38][39]. Tenmei accues Teeninvestor as confussing with the IP sock. It is not new that Tenmei has attacked "ethnicity" of editors such as see his usage of {{one china}} and accused the IP user of "PRC-sponsored vandalism".[40]

Tenmei's claim of WP:English contradicts his own favoritism of foreign sources such as (1, 2, 3, French source) and many cases. Tenmei did the same thing to Joseon Tongsinsa (1) and Yosei (1, 2, 3, 4) to discredit reputable Korean Encyclopedias. So his claim is proved to be WP:POINTY and gaming the system to disparage his opponents.--Caspian blue 22:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Tenmei tends to make hyperbolic, WP:TLDR, accusatory, off-topic, Wikilawyering arguments, so even a petty issue can turn into a "endless saga series on "wars" by him. Tenmei seems to consider his trimmed evidence in "15160 bytes" is so worthy to be relocated to ArbCom spaces and others.(1, 2) His quotations from Coren's comment, George Santayana's maxim, Latin idioms, logical fallacies, wikitionary are used to upset and insult his opponents. Likewise, his WP:BATTLE mentality derails from actual disputes.

• Common sense? - When some editor who Tenmei considers his "mentor/friend" violated an ArbCom probation, Tenmei posted her blocklog and his odd lecture based on his "grief" while the user being blocked. He did not realize that careless act can be construed as "taunting" to her.

Extant ancient sources on Göktürks and Xueyantuo are all recorded by Chinese, so modern scholarship on Inner Asia tends to reflect the ancient Chinese view. English secondary sources are scarce. I suggest two alternative ways; 1) scanning the book and sending the copy to the ArbCom via email to confirm the content or 2) using alternative sources. I found some English and Korean reputable sources that can cover general contents and rebut Tenmei's accusation. As for detailed information, I guess Documents sur les Tou-kiue (Turcs) occidentaux (1900) written by Édouard Chavannes can be reference since the book is a comprehensive research on Chinese ancient documents on Göktürks.

Teeninvester is a good contributer towards China related articles, be it Tang, Ming, or Qing.

On limited times that I had interacted with user Tenmei, he/she does have communication problem, in the sense that he/she would present large amount of irrelevant material and hence create unnecessary and time-wasting arguments, and he/she seem to enjoy these never ending arguments. That is why I have advice user Teeninvestor, regardless of any arguments, just ignore and advoid him/her at all cost. Arilang ^talk 21:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have had no involvement with the Tang Dynasty article, but I have had a previous dispute with Teeninvestor on the Comparison between Roman and Han Empires article, where I questioned the same source. So despite Tenmei's misgivings [41], I am not here to sing his praises. Teeninvestor contacted me, and asked me to make a brief statement, which I will do. Based on some observations, I will present my findings from scrounging through both users’ edits in the Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty article and talk pages.

His edits seem to be in good faith, although his efforts are misguided with a warped view of the dispute resolution process, and a habit of using overlong arguments. Tenmei’s edits are usually minor, and detrimental to the readability of articles. He has also been previously involved in disruptive editing on Wikipedia (See: [42] and [43]. Furthermore, Tenmei deliberately chose to skip the reliable sources noticeboard, which could have passed a ruling (Evidence: [44]). Some examples of disruptive actions, or actions detrimental to a collaborative editing environment, by Tenmei are:

1. Not assuming good faith of the contributor, and removing sources just because they are inaccessible to him. [45]
2. Just from the Talk:Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty, there are many instances of incivility: He calls an anonymous editor a discredited fraud in this edit summary: [46] (proof that that IP is him [47]), and makes disruptive comments to users he doesn’t agree with [48]
3. Simply collapsing comments he does not agree with, and calls these actions constructive. [49] Collapses good-faith comments as vandalism [50]
4. Brands opponents as PRC sponsored shill [51]
5. Collapsing more opinions which did not agree with him [52]
6. With the edit summary “gaming the system -- not the way to work with others”, reverts when an IP editor undid the collapsing of the arguments to revert it. [53]
7. Discretely added a collapsed box around a conflicting opinion with these edits: [54] [55]
8. Personal attacks, calls an IP editor toxic, and tells him to get more friends. [56]
9. Calls three IP editors Toxic. [57]
10. Assumes bad faith here, and doesn’t’ bother to try and “figure it out.” [58]
11. Thinks that all IP contributions to article are part of a PRC sponsored attack, and calls the anons “toxic warriors.” [59]
12. Calls the work of other contributors a “salted-bomb article” not worthy of keeping, and suggests a disruptive merge of the article in question, which is promptly reverted as nonsense. [60], [61], [62]
13. Chooses to bypass the Reliable sources noticeboard, and only succeeds in increasing the drama. [63]
14. Strikes out IP editor’s comments, and calls them toxic. [64]

Overall, his edits are often disruptive, harmful to a amicable editing environment, and inconsiderate of opposing points of view. While most of his uncivil remarks shouldn't cause the average editor much grief, the spirit in which the remarks were made, and numerous assumptions of bad faith are troublesome. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teeninvestor is a good-faith content contributor (with a DYK to his credit), who can get a little hot-headed when opposing view arise. However, whenever challenged, he has tried to satisfy opponents by tirelessly producing sources (most of which are reliable) to support his edits. Mainly from the history of the Inner Asia article, I have made the following observations:

• Personal attacks
  • Calls another editor’s opinion bs (bullshit). [65]
  • Calls Tenmei’s objections bs. [66],
  • Calls Tenmei obstinate on Pericles of Athen’s talk page [67]
  • Calls Tenmei a POV-pusher [68]
  • All-caps responses are typically considered disruptive to some degree, since it can is interpreted as the equilavent of shouting. [69], [70], [71], [72]

Overall, Teeninvestor’s of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are very minimal, and most of his opinions have strong corroborating evidence. Most of the remainder of his edits which I evaluated were attempts to discuss the problem reasonably. In this case, Teeninvestor expanded an article with a source in good faith, but was caught up in a dispute over its reliability, during which he was faced with tediously long passages, and some disruptive edits on Tenmei's parts (e.g. merging the article with Salting the Earth). While he might have been able to keep his cool a little bit better, he was not disruptive, and was following the spirit of Wikipedia policies. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While looking at the userpages, User:Teeninvestor is a Chinese (as stated in userpage), while User:Tenmei is heavily involved in Japanese articles (but insufficient to determine nationality). This could be a part of contention and I suspect the whole case (I am not saying who trigger it first - that's ArbCom's job), might be politically motivated. SYSS Mouse (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: See Han chauvinism.

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.