Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: John Vandenberg (Talk) & Newyorkbrad (Talk)

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 evidence to a maximum of 500 words and 50 diffs. Giving a short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 500 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 refactor 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.

Evidence presented by Penwhale

Current word length: 282; diff count: 0.

My Involvement

My involvement in this case is only restricted to a discussion on the Senkaku Islands talk page and restoration of a {{POV-title}} tag that was placed (and removed) by Feezo in an attempt to mediate the case, as by virtue of the discussion at the talk page, I felt the tag should have been in place.

My view

Despite my political bias, I, along with zscout370, suggested that keeping the article at its current name is just as politically not neutral as moving it to Diaoyu(tai), as each name suggests support for one side's view. As multiple editors attempted to use various forms of resource hits, it became clear that there doesn't seem to be an overwhelming domination of one term over the other in western usage. Thus, both me and zscout370 suggested a move to a neutral title similar to what was done at Liancourt Rocks.

Response to Oda Mari

Yes, I might have a Chinese bias, but I do not think this article belongs at the name Diaoyu(tai) (Islands) because we'd have the same exact argument like the one we are having right now. Like I've said on the article talk page - media outlets have tried to avoid this argument by naming both names in articles; this really serves as proof that SI isn't exactly an NPOV name either. That's exactly why I've been asking the question "Can we use the same compromise as in Liancourt Rocks; i.e. find a neutral, English name?" I know that the situation may be different, but it serves as a good place to start. Also, another point: we may need clarification on how to work the naming conventions within policy, which I hope the arbitrators will take a look at.

Evidence presented by STSC

Current word length: 521; diff count: 14.

Nonsensical reasoning by Qwyrxian that has prolonged the dispute

• Insisting that "Senkaku Islands" is NPOV: "We've established before that the title is NPOV"

--- How could the title with the Japanese name "Senkaku Islands" be established as NPOV while Japan is a participant in the territory dispute?

• Insisting that only "Senkaku Islands" should be used because it is the English name: "my stance has always been that "Senkaku Islands" is the real English name for the islands"

--- If "Senkaku Islands" is the English name, then "Diaoyu Islands" or "Diaoyutai Islands" is also the English name.

A response to Cla68

diff no. 52: The [citation needed] should have been [verification needed].

A response to Qwyrxian

Qwyrxian was digging out the talk page archives about one year ago when he was not even involved in editing the article.
diff no. 71 & 72: The arguement was based on John Smith's insisting to remove "Japan lost the war in 1945".
diff no. 73: I just expressed my view based on the 01:54, 24 September 2010 version of the article. The article has been improved partly because of my involvement in the edits.
diff no. 74: The argument was based on Phoenix7777 removing the POV-check tag. I initiated the discussion. (Talk:SI/Archive 4)
diff no. 75: I just expressed my observation in this section: Gaming the system is an improper use of Policy and is forbidden. (Talk:SI/Archive 4)
diff no. 76: Hounding the light-hearted chats on the personal talk pages is just pettiness; it should not be used as "evidence".
I have not accused anyone of sabotage. He was the one very much disrespecting me in saying I adding the POV-title tag "simply because you don't agree with the name" in spite of my explanation earlier (Talk/SId/Archive 4).

There's the real danger of Qwyrxian misusing his administrator's power

Incredibly he is still insisting he can misrepresent (or "interpret" as he put it) other editors' wording and freely impose his own view on what other editors actually say. Qwyrxian cannot be an administrator with this kind of egocentric mentality; otherwise he may be dishing out unfair blocks to other editors simply based on his own "interpretation" and not the facts.

Oda Mari's habit of reverting

She frequently abused the use of Twinkle to revert the edits that are not to her liking. Her record of Wiki contributions can reveal a great deal of revert actions.

She used Twinkle to push her POV and remove the POV-title tags on the articles without a valid reason:
example1 example2 example3

A response to John Smith's

Whether I personally agree to the current title or not does not prevent the progressing of the article at all.
He is responsible for a number of major edit-wars: edit-war on POV-title tag, edit-war on questionable image., edit-war on "Japan lost the war in 1945", etc.
He frequently used " no consensus" as a reason to prevent any NPOV edit: example1 - Talk:SI/Archive 4 - Verifiability
While debating on the usage of Diaoyu and Diaoyutai in the articles, he went on to vandalize the "Chinese people" article to push his POV that the people of the ROC are not Chinese: exhibit1

Tenmei's edit-war tactic

He is similar to a filibuster; he would revert and bomb you with a chunk of obscure text: example1, then more chunks of obscure text (and graphics) after that:Talk:SId/Archive 4.

Evidence presented by Lvhis

Current word length: 550; diff count: 49.

Qwyrxian has used Original Research preventing consensus

A key issue for the pages in question is which name is from which language. I have repeatedly shown that there are Reliable Sources (two of them from Japanese authors to avoid POV) confirming "Pinnacle Islands" is the real English name while the current name "Senkaku" used for the pages is the Japanese name [1][2][3] [4][5]. User:Qwyrxian repeatedly using Original Research asserted that the Japanese name is the real English name, and refused to provide reliable sources when requested for several times [6][7][8][9][10] [2] [11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. He demonstrated that he did not possess a basic background of the naming history for this geographical entity [18][19]. By this means he refused to reach consensus on an edited version that was a certain consensus supported by the reliable sources and an outcome from previous discussion [20][21][22].

Qwyrxian also opposed the common applicability of Wikipedia guideline WP:NCGN#Multiple local names and the typical example "Liancourt Rocks" by asserting that "Wikipedia actually doesn't strive to have cross-article consistency", i.e. refused to keep wiki NPOV consistency among articles when he replied user Marcopolo112233's challenge "Naming consistency" [23][24], and as he always does, he intentionally avoided referring the most suitable Wikipedia guideline when he mentioned some wiki guidelines and policies [25].

As a consequence, Qwyrxian's such violation of Wiki policies "WP:SOURCE", "WP:NOR", and "WP:NPOV" has made consensus practically impossible in solving disputes not only on page edition but also on naming issue. --Lvhis (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

User Oda Mari

In this section she also violated "WP:SOURCE", "WP:NOR", and "WP:NPOV" following Qwyrxian. --Lvhis (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Improper conduct with double standards and gaming the system ruined efforts preventing edit-warring

This was mainly done by some users authorized with adminship in managing the page Senkaku Islands dispute. Initially an unorthodox sanction was set by admin Magog the Ogre for this page and worked quite well at beginning, though with a cost that I was mistakenly blocked [26][27][28] (which only took less than 2 hours after I was reported [29]). Some sort of consensus for editing a part had even been reached [20, 21, 22] (when Qwyrxian had wiki break for certain reason). But later this sanction became actually in vain, not only by user:Tenmei's violation ([30] after [31]) but also by user Qwyrxian's cooperative "revert" [32] and a "discussion" [33] which interrupted another ongoing discussion obeying the sanction at [34] of [35]. No response from the admin during a period of 31 hours with 4 reports on this violation [36][37][38][39]. User Qwyrxian neither reported this violation to admin Magog nor assisted to enforce the sanction fairly to stop edit-warring. Instead, he made an excuse for user Tenmei to game the system [40]. When Tenmei came back from his "wiki pause" of such gaming, he challenged the sanction bolder and bolder [41][42][43][44][45][46][47], and eventually has made admin Magog fully protected that page [48]. Agreeing on user Bobthefishe2's question here [49][50], I also believe that this full protection is like another unbalanced enforcement of rules because now only one user (Tenmei) had violated the rule and the admin would have only needed to block this user alone but no need to prevent all other innocent users from editing the page by faithfully obeying the sanction. --Lvhis (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I once ignited a hope that Qwyrxian would improve himself and help to solve this dispute when he was elected new admin though I made my firm Oppose #5 in his RfA. Now I have been totally disappointed. --Lvhis (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

A response to Evidence presented by Magog the Ogre

Right here this page's talk page. --Lvhis (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Cla68

Current word length: 387; diff count: 3.

In December 2010 I made the following edits to the Senkaku Islands article [51]. On 23 January 2011, STSC split the paragraphs I had written, and added "citation needed" tags [52]. STSC's addition of the word "technically" to the text is supported by the source, but the "citation needed" tags are not, as the source contained all the information included in my original edit. Later, PalaceGuard008 made this edit [53], in which he/she introduced text which appears to dispute the assertions from the source. I noticed what had happened in April, and brought it up on the article talk page since the article was locked down. Tenmei gave a response in which he promoted use of more sources for that section. My request and his suggestions appear to have been ignored. STSC and PalaceGuard008's edits to the text I added were, in my opinion, not very helpful.

I was partially involved in a similar dispute a few years ago over the Sea of Japan naming dispute. That dispute eventually faded away because, I suspect, the involved editors found better things to do. I believe one or two of the more troublesome editors were banned for edit warring, which probably helped out a lot. Nevertheless, in this case, I suggest flushing out the editors who are fighting a little too hard over the article's content, so that editors who don't have as emotional a stake in the outcome can help shape the article into a stable, reasonably NPOV version.

As far as the name of the article, Japan's government administers the islands and its coast guard and other military forces keep them that way, so I think the appropriate name is fairly obvious. There is precedence for this in Wikipedia. The southern Kuril Islands belonged to Japan from 1855 until 1945, when they were occupied by Russia at the end of WWII. Japan disputes Russia's possession of these islands. The English Wikipedia article for them is the Kuril Islands, although the Japanese name is "Chishima Islands" (the article in the Japanese Wikipedia carries this name). Government possession appears to be a crucial factor in deciding the name given to groups of islands. Editors who dispute this too strongly give the impression that they are trying to reclaim the islands on behalf of the government which claims previous ownership. Cla68 (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Qwyrxian

Current word length: 681; diff count: 31.

General statement

I believe there are three editors who are causing the bulk of the problems on these pages; a fourth is generally good though needs a little bit of AGF.

Bobthefish2

Bobthefish2 has long had a battlefield mentality ([54][55]) and [56] where he incites new editor Lvhis to adopt the same attitude), incivility ([57][58]), and a willingness to game the system (xe advocated getting the page locked so that people give up and leave [59] [60]). The WQA filed against him failed to improve the situation because xe was unwilling to consider xyr behavior to be a problem. Things became worse after Bobthefish2 returned from a Wikibreak. When problems occurred in Mediation, Bobthefish2 made them public, accusing mediator Feezo on usertalk pages of lack of expertise, and implying that Feezo lacks competence and starts fights. I'm certain MedCom can vouch that this is not what actually occurred. Bobthefish2 continued to try building a battleground mentality in Lvhis ([61]).

I believe that Bobthefish2 has switched from pursuing DR to intentionally disrupting the process by baiting other users and trying to drive users away by upsetting them. [62] and [63] show xem refusing parts of guidelines that harm xyr position on "common sense" grounds while placing the burden on me to justify following them, along with a focus on minutiae designed to frustrate forward progress. A few days later, he resumed verbally attacking John Smith's ([64] plus the collapsed part of Talk:Senkaku Islands#Encyclopedias/almanacs), which culminated in links to cartoons which are at best in poor taste and at worst racist. He described me as foaming at the mouth and Magog and me as having forgotten our medication.

In sum, I believe that Bobthefish2's uncivil disruption is actively preventing forward progress on these pages.

Tenmei

Tenmei's behavior in Arbitration so far exemplifies the problems xe has in the SI articles. Tenmei's writing style is obscure and filled with links to quotations and cliches, "dispute resolution tables", and graphics that don't help the process. Furthermore, as xe did on the Proposals page, xe often attacks the very people who try to help xem. A few examples:

• In this thread he included 2 tables, a DR graph, 10 diffs, 3 wiktionary definition-links, etc.; xyr message failed to be conveyed. Similar recent example: [65].
• Latin phrases: [66], [67]
• Scroll through Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute/Archive 1, and you'll see 3 different unhelpful images from Tenmei.
• Failure to understand xyr style isn't working: [68]. After I explained that his writing was overlong and incomprehensible, xe responded with another section [69] that's even longer and harder to follow.
• Tenmei sometimes tries to compel others to change their words or speak for them ([70]).

Tenmei's inability to express xyrself in simple, concise ways is disruptive, because it compels editors who care to spend an inordinate amount of time deciphering his message. Sometimes these long messages come off as attacking and uncivil. Tenmei has previously been warned about this by Arbcom, in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty. Sadly, the combination of Tenmei's inability to get his point across on talk, along with his conviction that every edit he makes is "pro-Wikipedia", renders his presence on these articles a net negative.

STSC

For a long time, STSC has treated his "opponents" on the Senkaku Islands articles with disrespect by accusing them of sabotage and hidden agendas ([71], [72], [73], [74], [75]). STSC treats the subject as a war ([76]). Furthermore, even though STSC disputes my interpretation, I still believe this statement implies he will never accept the name Senkaku, no matter how many times consensus favors it; this refusal to accept consensus is antithetical to collaborative editing.

Lvhis

Lvhis is mostly a good editor. Sometimes Lvhis is too stubborn ([77]). The only major problem is when the stubbornness combines with misinterpretation. It concerns me that Lvhis thinks xe/they managed to prove SI supporters completely wrong in mediation, even though mediation simply ended without any resolution (though not Lvhis's fault), or that I am blatantly flouting WP:NPOV or WP:NOR as xe explains in xyr Evidence, when I'm just trying to following policy as best as I can. If Lvhis would just AGF that other users really are trying to apply the rules, even when interpretations differ, xe will be good to work with.

Evidence presented by Bobthefish2

Current word length: 725; diff count: 48.

Disregarded Examples of Incivility/Battleground/Personal Attacks

1. [78][79][80][81] – Edit-war/disruptive-editing accusation. Ironically, Qwyrxian defended me back then [82], although he's now accusing me of gaming the system (see his evidence).
2. [83] – Rude comments that were followed by endorsement by another party [84]
3. [85][86] – tactics are smoke_and_mirrors, without substance.
4. [87][88] – "Shill", "seduced by fraud", "con-game"
5. [89][90][91][92][93][94] – Personal-attacks
6. [95][96] – Attacks on MedCom
7. [97][98] - Accused placement of NPOV template as Chinese POV-pushing

Disruptive Behaviours of Qwyrxian

Qwyrxian's presence in the article pages has been quite unproductive recently:

1. Frequently held one or two parties solely responsible for systemic problems caused by numerous parties (including himself). See Qwyrxian’s evidence and content above/below.
2. Accused me of OWN when I wanted to request user-ban for tendentious-editing [99].
3. In two recent threads [100][101]:
   • He demonstrated a low degree of knowledge of his opponents' arguments and evidence despite spending 10 months and 1 mediation on the topic, and despite the fact that his opponents' had been referring to them for quite a while. Concerning, he was planning to open yet another RfC on the topic, which would've been a tremendous waste of time (like this ArbCom case) since he did not seem capable of (or willing to) pay attention to what his opponents said.
   • Even though the evidence of his opponents were shown to be diverse sets of manually verified samples of reliable literature sources taken from multiple respected repositories of information (i.e. Google Scholar, World Cat, JSTOR, etc), he repeatedly dismissed these evidence as unreliable Google search results. Instead, he stubbornly wanted undue weight to be given to his small encyclopedia/almanacs that he hand-sampled from his local library.
   • When concerns were raised about the exceedingly small sample size (n=5) of his almanacs, he dismissed these critiques by telling his opponents to open a publishing company to print more samples.
   • Throughout the discussion, he aggressively pushed opponents to adhere every single rule of the guidelines. When legitimate concerns were raised (i.e sample size, narrowness of genre), he dismissed them as arbitrary reasons (also see Qwyrxian's evidence for that accusation).
   • In the midst of the discussion, he attacked me (see #4 below), then got stressed out [102], and then returned to complain about me taking advantage of him along with some pretty erratic comments
4. He condemned some comics were racist when they really weren't. [103]. He then disregarded explanations as to why they weren't racist [104] and proceeded to throw a big tantrum [105] consisted of rants about political correctness and racism, insults of other people ("allegedly-smart", "trolling"), and some admissions regarding how he wouldn't have reacted in such a way had the subject been a different person (i.e. not me). He later refused to apologize/discuss the matter, claimed to be baited, and held others responsible for his misdemeanor [106] (and see last point on #3 above)
5. Gamed the system (See Magog_the_Ogre).

Magog_the_Ogre

He imposed break-BRD=block rule [107] and blocked Lvhis for breaking BRD. Later, Tenmei broke BRD and Magog refused to block arguing that Tenmei did not break BRD [108]. Lvhis and I politely debated Magog’s decision and Tenmei declared wiki-break in the midst of that. After a few exchanges, Magog said I was "getting on his nerves". After further providing arguments regarding his mistakes, he closed topic and implied I had sinister agenda he could not fulfill. I brought the problem over to User:Elen_of_the_Roads and she eventually agreed Magog's approach and verdicts were wrong [109]. Qwyrxian also joined in to game the system in Tenmei's favour. He argued Tenmei shouldn’t be blocked because the latter declared a wiki-break and that blocks should not be used as punishment. I argued the block should be enforced to avoid systems to be gamed and to serve as a preventative measure. This matter was eventually closed because it was going nowhere. Shortly after, Tenmei immediately cancelled wiki-break [110]. Later, Magog said I’m nothing but troll due to this [111] and started some pretty vile attacks (also see Magog's evidence).

Tenmei

Principle source of DISRUPT. Principle cause of mediation failure (attacked MedCom/Qwyrxian/myself, refused cooperation). Dumps excessive amount of irrelevant/long/incomprehensible/rude comments/attacks in discussions. Ignores pleas for better communication. See his RFCU for some details.

"Newsletters"

1. [112][113]
2. [114]
3. [115][116][117]
4. [118]
5. [119]
6. [120]

Misc

1. Repeated edit-wars caused page protection [121][122]
2. Fruitless discussions about Taiwanese people are not Chinese [123]. When [124] as one of the evidence, someone quietly changed that page w/o discussion/notification (swiftly reverted by someone else) [125].
3. Another fruitless discussion where parties refused to remove dubious sources [126]
4. Someone started ANI [127] and attacked an admin from Taiwan (Penwhale) for alleged COI in re-instating the POV tag on the article name.

Misc#2

1. [128]
2. [129]

Evidence presented by Tenmei

Current word length: 574; diff count: 31.

This "evidence" nudges select topics towards a practical, forward-looking outcome.

A small step back makes it possible to begin to discern patterns and to mitigate some of the ways our process falls short.

Bad apples

Qwyrxian's overview here is reflected by Magog who argues that "censure of the bad apples would be quite helpful." This focuses only on identifying culprits. This does little to help us perceive better options in the past or future. Some patterns can be discerned across several threads; and this kind of problem stands apart from searching for "bad apples", e.g.,

• thread (26-27 Jan 2011) + Q-diff (27 Jan 2011) + B-diff (27 Jan 2011) + compare Q-diff (9 June 2011)
• thread (29-30 Jan 2011) + Q-diff (30 Jan 2011) + compare subsequent Q-diff (31 Aug 2011) + see also Q-diff (9 June 2011)
• thread (29 Jan-4 Feb 2011) + Q-diff (3 Feb 2011)

Prevention is better than cure

John Smith's suggests that sometimes prevention is better than cure, which begs questions which appear to be ignored.

Characterising the participants as "both sides pretty much entrenched and non-collaborative" is a self-fulfilling prophesy and the false dilemma is misleading, e.g.,

• Q-diff (4 Feb 2011).

Unstated premises

Unstated premises in the scope of arbitration need to be made explicit, e.g., Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Senkaku Islands#Issues to be mediated

• thread (5 May 2011) + T-diff (28 April 2011)

Some of the foreseeable consequences of some problems are mitigated by identifying them -- in other words, naming the elephant in the room

• J-diff (14 Oct 2011)

Our conventional processes and threshold requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia parse distinctions between facts and factoids. These are not dispensable when POV is alleged to be a red flag -- in other words, ignoring the elephant in the room

DIFFS + support

FACT = verifiable

A T-diff (1 Aug 2011)

B T-diff (4 Aug 2011)

DIFFS (unsupported)

FACTOID = opinion only

A+? Q-diff (4 Aug 2011)

B+? S-diff (13 Aug 2011)

The diffs with citation support are evaluated by conventional processes ("verifiability, not truth"), which highlights stark differences between something and nothing. When anyone asserts "POV", there is no alchemy which converts that conclusory opinion into fact.

In all the diffs above, the persisting conflation of issues is a bait and switch tactic, e.g.

• S-diff (3 May 2011)
• L-diff (29 July 2011)
• L-diff (30 July 2011)

These confounding factors affect our ability to figure out what is causing people to behave badly. Getting this right forms the basis of good decisions in this case. --Tenmei (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Getting it right

More than one ball in the air at the same time.

Sequence of edit history

• A. Lvhis edited the text and added an inline citation in the first paragraph here (Senkaku Islands dispute). This was his first and only citation-supported edit up to that point. The CNN reference was previously cited here and here (compare Penwhale's diff here).

Articles about sources cited

• Netherlands Institute for the Law of the Sea created by Tenmei here 12 October 2010
• Unryu Suganuma created here 31 July 2011

• B. Lvhis added words and other citations were moved, e.g., here.

• Lee Seokwoo created by Tenmei here 4 August 2011
• Han-yi Shaw created by Tenmei here 4 August 2011

Qwyrixian's diff here thwarted the delicate evolving collaboration. He "snatched defeat from the jaws of victory". If we focus on what went right, it helps clarify the contrast with what went wrong. The edits of Lvhis were small steps towards successful collaborative editing. --Tenmei (talk) 21:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Oda Mari

Current word length: 500; diff count: 31.

General statement

The recent mess began after 2010 Senkaku boat collision incident and was caused by some Chinese editors driven by their nationalism at the incident.

Bobthefish2, a disruptive SPA

SPA

Account creation was on Sept. 10, 2010, just after the Sept. 7 Senkaku boat collision incident. After 31 edits, he came to the SI article talk page on Oct. 3. About 80% of his contributions are Senkaku related. He was away from WP from March 8 to May 25 when the articles were protected. Again in June when the mediation was pending. [130]

Conduct

• Canvassing at zh WP.
  On Oct. 7 in enOn Oct. 7 in en
  Left a comment to the canvassing thread Lvhis created. On June 23 in zh
• Pushing a fabricated news article in zh as RS when there were en sources.
  [131] [132] [133][134] [135][136]
• Sarcasm
  [137] [138][139]
• Unnecessary comments
  [140] [141][142]

Lvhis

• He may not be a SPA, but about 70% of his contributions are SI related.
• Canvassing at zh WP in en and zh. [143]
• Chinese admin shopping
  Asked for help to user:Nlu at zh WP and was told “dual name title is too long”.
  [144]
  Requested Penwhale to edit. [145] It was answered promptly. [146]

Possible tag team

Bobthefish2, Lvhis, and STSC have been talking about other editors, especially about those who with different views, and about the articles. I've never seen this kind of talks before. [147] (Though inactive since December 19, San9663 was a SPA.) [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153]

I just don't like it /any name but Senkaku

When I saw the POV tag, I asked myself "Who think it's biased?". North and South America, Europe, Africa, Middle East…most people are indifferent or don’t think it biased. My answer was Chinese, Taiwanese, Overseas Chinese, and CPOV supporters. I asked Penwhale the question. [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] Conclusion: Only Chinese and Taiwanese think Senkaku biased. Those who say the SI is a biased name are CPOV pushers, abusing NPOV policy. Additionally, when I saw this, I thought "Any name will do for them but the single use of Senkaku".

I didn’t hear that the Liancourt Rocks was the common name

Zscout370 suggested the Pinnacle Islands was the only option, citing Liancourt Rocks. [161] I refuted. [162] His next post was a misconception. [163] I pointed it out. [164] No response. The talk died out, and I couldn’t refute further. But Zscout370, Lvhis, and Penwhale still think PI would be a good option at here. And what is worse, their claim is based on misunderstanding. I have no idea who wrote it, but the description of LR at WP:NCGN#Multiple local names was totally wrong. If you know the dispute well, it’s obvious. Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Liancourt Rocks [165] [166] The neutrality of the name is accidental. LR was chosen because it's the common name. But not PI. [167] Bonin Islands (UNESCO uses Ogasawara Islands ref), Liancourt Rocks, and Sea of Japan. All of them are BGN 's approved names and used by the US government ref . Senkaku Shoto is the BGN's approved name too. I don't understand why they deny SI only nor why they keep on saying SI should be moved to the least common, almost obsolete name. Probably because of "any name but Senkaku". In other WPs, PI is used only in Tagalog and all the other WPs use Senkaku except Chinese languages.

Evidence presented by John Smith's

Tenmei

He is too verbose. He seems to find it hard to get his points across in ways that users can understand. He can result in delay in dealing with matters, but I don't think he is the main cause of the problems here.

STSC

As Qwyrxian indicates, it would appear that he has a set position that means he will not accept "Senkaku Islands" as an article title under any circumstances. This is a roadblock to progressing the article. He has also joined in with edit-warring over the NPOV tag.

Lvhis

Lvhis is not the main source of the trouble, but he has caused problems over his insistance that the relevant articles be tagged NPOV. It was disappointing that after I and some other users agreed to add an NPOV tag to the relevant article(s) as part of mediation, he declined to agree that it could be removed after mediation. He seems to want the article permanently tagged until the title is changed. He has also created edit wars by repeatedly reinserting a NPOV tag. He keeps claiming that removing the NPOV tag will start an edit war, yet he himself is largely to blame for edit warring by reinserting it after Tenmei removed it and then again after Oda Mari removed it. On the Senkaku Islands article, Lvhis has also kept reinserting the tag, suggesting that it is needed because there is an edit-war. I would argue that if it wasn't for Lvhis, there would be no edit-warring over the tag.

Bobthefish2

Bob pretends to be funny but causes disruption. As discussed during a Wikiquette alert posting, Bob does not seem to think that it is important to consider how people might react to what he writes. I would draw attention to Qwyxian's collapsed comment in the above link, as well as Bob's inability to recognise he has done anything wrong. Bob has a point of view, and that's all that's important. Despite the fact that Oda Mari had taken left the discussion because of Bob's attitude, Bob refused to apologise. It would have cost him nothing to make up with Oda Mari, but again he didn't see that he had done anything wrong. Bob also loves to poke away at me, referring to the loss of the British Empire and suggesting that I come from an ex-first rate power.

Bob also is not always transparent in complaining about other's behaviour. For example, see his comment in the above evidence where I discussed Penwhale's actions. For some reason he refers to me as "someone". Also note this reference to 5 guaranteed votes for status quo regardless of evidence presented. Although I ask him to clarify his comment, he does not say who he was referring to, though it's obvious he can only be referring to me, Tenmei, Oda Mari, Phoenix777 and Qwyrxian. This does not suggest he is acting in good faith.

Bob has clearly demonstrated that he is not capable or interested in working in a collaborative way with editors he disagrees with on issues such as this.

Evidence presented by Magog the Ogre

Current word length: 699; diff count: 41.

Background - my involvement

My involvement has been limited to acting as a neutral administrator. I entered via the 3RR board, and remained involved via messages on my talk page, and some admin actions (protections, one block). I also invoked WP:IAR to apply a strict WP:BRD rule on one page, in a vain attempt to avoid arbitration, for which I had the consent of all relevant parties on the talk page (Talk:Senkaku_Islands_dispute/Archive 5#BRD_cycle,_crystal_clear) and for which I received no disapproval at ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive712#Sanctions).

General statement

I have observed mainly 4 editors: Bobthefish2, Tenmei, Lvhis, and Qwyrxian. The biggest problems came from the former two.

Bobthefish2

Bobthefish2 hides personal attacks/trolling behind the veneer of politeness. He is intelligent enough to be just so ambiguous to avoid a block and play the "I wasn't being mean" card but to still get under someone's skin. Examples:

• Implying editors are "1337" and unemployed [168] [169]
• Refusing to take discussion off Feezo's talk page [170] multiple times [171] [172] [173] (all oh so politely).
• Reference to editors' mental stability [174] and refusal to apologize [175] [176].
• Telling opponent he will be greatly missed with smiley [177].
• Frequent use of smileys in obviously aggressive [178] [179] [180] and borderline aggressive [181] [182] [183] statements.

Re: block of Lvhis/non-block of Tenmei

• I made crystal clear that Lvhis' block was for BRD (even Lvhis accepted this [184]), but that Tenmei didn't actually break BRD. Bob simply kept arguing and deflecting the issue and never directly addressed BRD. It was a classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. (link). For a fuller explanation the event, see User:Magog the Ogre/Senkaku Arbitration - BRD instance (I highly request and suggest you read it).
  
  Notice the tactic was successful; Lvhis went from accepting his block as correct (see above) to being "confused and disappointed" and thinking his original block unjust (see [185] and his statement above).

Delegitimization of neutral administrators

• He did this to mediator Feezo (see Qwyrxian's statement) until Feezo got fed up and labeled Bobthefish2 a troll.[186]
• I allegedly went from being Bob's "favorite admin" [187] and receiving his acceptance [188] to censorship [189] and sinister enforcement of a double standard [190].
  
  Notably, before the event even occurred, I'd already been expecting for Bob to pick a fight sooner or later in an attempt to delegitimize me. I was proven magnificently correct. It's difficult to believe it was an organic thought process (and not an opportunity to pick a fight) given how quickly it happened.

Over 50% of Bob's contributions are to User talk or Wikipedia [191] (i.e., pages where he's arguing about arguing). Currently, under 7% of his contributions are to articles. Not including mediation.

Tenmei

• It is difficult to criticize an editor for being too wordy, but Tenmei deserves criticism. See Qwyrxian's comments above; our conversations feel like communicating with the Tamarian race. He explicitly refused my request to be more concise... by quoting five different literary sources [192]. In that diff Tenmei implied (by referring to commentary on Mozart having "too many notes") that criticizing him for writing too long is unacceptable because such lengthy commentary is "essential in collaborative editing". In other words, Tenmei implies he must talk like this, and all of us are wrong for not following his lead. The result is that no one reads Tenmei, meanwhile he ignores other editor's points (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT) in a flurry of text that makes it difficult to discern.
• Tenmei thinks if something passes WP:V, then edit warring is not edit warring, and WP:NPOV is irrelevant. Initially this appears to be m:MPOV, but it might also be incompetance. (proof: read at your own risk: link1, link2).
• At one point, Tenmei said he was withdrawing from the page, only to come back and continue an edit war (User talk:Magog the Ogre/Archive 15#Senkaku Islands dispute, Tenmei). The edit was the straw causing this arbitration). It was pure unacceptable WP:DIVA.

Re: Lvhis' above claiming my second protection in lieu of a block was unfair

• ...he is correct; Tenmei should have been blocked, but it was not feasible because I already protected the page (it being clear my unorthodox solution had failed). I was ready to block Tenmei (and even wish I could have) [193] [194].

Others

• Qwyrxian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I have observed nothing but exemplary behavior from him.

Edit warring over {{POV-title}} tag

Many of the editors below have edit warred extensively (e.g., Phoenix7777 with ~6 non-BRD revisions in SID alone [195]) , but I am only showing one issue.

• Lvhis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - [196] [197] [198] [199] [200] [201] [202]
• Oda Mari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - [203] [204] [205]
• John Smith's (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - [206] [207]
• Phoenix7777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - [208] [209]
• STSC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - [210] [211]

Evidence presented by Beeblebrox

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tenmei

I'm not really an involved party, but I did close the RFC on Tenmei's behavior that was filed back in March, and that is what I would like to discuss briefly. Tenmei asked a series of six questions which were fairly straightforward in nature example. One would assume the persons filing the RFC, Bob thefish and Qwyrxian, would be the ones to answer these questions, which were designed to help Tenmei understand what he had specifically done wrong and how to avoid repeating his mistakes. At the time the questions were posted, neither of them had edited the RFC in ten days. Neither of them offered any answers to those questions or in fact ever edited the RFC again. After 23 days of no edits by anyone besides Tenmei, I elected to close the RFC, as it seemed clear that the filing parties had given up on trying to come to any voluntary decision.

While I certainly see the need to do something about this prolonged dispute and I acknowledge that Tenmei's style of communication is sometimes problematic, I would ask the committee members to consider these facts while you decide whether to throw Tenmei off the project or not. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

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

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

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.