User:Enkyo2/Sandbox-O

Alternate

 * Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Coren#Candidate statement;

HYPOTHESIS: WP:V + WP:RS present a way to distinguish between "pro-Wikipedia" contributors/contributions and others.

FACT A: Problems in the development of Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute are representative of a range of related issues which are poisoning the kind of collaborative editing which makes our Wikipedia possible.
 * PREMISE: Mediation pretends that this fact is not demonstrated and not relevant; and instead, the mediation process begins by postulating the opposite.
 * COROLLARY: Academic integrity is not a priority, not the ultimate goal of collaboration nor mediation.

FACT B: There are real-world factions that vie for control over articles, turning them into polemical battlegrounds where surface civility is used to cover bias, tendentiousness, harassment, etc.
 * PREMISE: Mediation pretends that this fact is neither demonstrable nor relevant; and instead, the mediation process begins by postulating the opposite.
 * COROLLARY: All disputes are between individuals only; and they are best resolved by ascribing the crux of controversy to factors unrelated to content.

FACT C: There are long-term toxic warriors who engage in a kind of "polite disruption", using our policies and rules of civility as weapons.
 * PREMISE: Mediation pretends that acknowledging this fact is unhelpful; and instead, the mediation process begins by postulating the opposite.
 * COROLLARY: This mediation pretends that long-term warriors are not toxic, but vested.


 * 1) Unlike "simple" incivility, the damage caused by editors misquoting, plagiarizing and editorializing destroys the credibility of our encyclopedia.


 * Increased transparency in the arbitration process, the Arbitrators must explain their decisions in better detail beyond a simple "aye/nay" and expose their reasoning and justification. It is important that the community understands why the Committee rules as it does, not just receive seemingly arbitrary edicts from "on high".

The Diaoyu/Senkaku dispute is not the only maritime territorial dispute that either China or Japan has with their neighboring countries. The possible negative domino effect of the dispute is what China and Japan attempt to avoid. The real importance of the islands lies in the dispute’s implications for the wider context of the two countries’ approaches to maritime and island disputes, as well as in the way in which those issues can be used by domestic political groups to further their own objectives. This overlapping interest, however, has made finding an acceptable solution to sovereignty controversy more challenging. -- http://www.cewp.fudan.edu.cn/attachments/article/68/Pan%20Zhongqi,%20Sino-Japanese%20Dispute%20over%20the%20DiaoyuSenkaku%20Islands%20The%20Pending%20Controversy.pdf

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28geographic_names%29&oldid=420415017#Proposals Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions ... proposal in table format]


 * You can always check the previous threads to see what others say. Again, I don't really care. Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Responding to the question Qwyrxian presents in the last sentence of the diff above:
 * Question : What logical reason is there for the Chinese names to come first?
 * Answer : In October 2010, Winstonlighter explained, "I'm concerned about this because by chronography, Chinese names and records will go ahead of the Japanese ones." I can only wonder if this is the crux of Winstonlighter's argument? In this context, it must be noted that chronography redirects to our article on chronology, which suggests a distinction without a difference? According to Winstonlighter, "the changes on name ordering have been reverted by adminstrators, me and many others in the past whole year" prior to October 2010 when an explicit talk page thread asking for consensus on Name ordering was created.

Compare threads which considered the subject of "name ordering", e.g.,
 * Archive 4: here, here, here and here
 * Archive 6: here
 * Archive 7: here, here, here and here


 * Expanding, supporting and emphasizing the core point Qwyrxian presents in the diff above: Yes, the name of this article  &mdash; Senkaku Islands &mdash; is the result of consensus supported by policy and redundantly repeated, exhaustive research applying a variant-Bayesian inference and analysis of Google search results, etc. ... and extended discussion

Compare threads which considered the subject of "article name", e.g.,
 * Archive 1: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here
 * Archive 2: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, hre, and here
 * Archive 3: here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here
 * Archive 4: here and here,
 * Archive 5: here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here
 * Archive 6: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here,
 * Archive 7: here


 * 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.  The edit history of this talk page is a compelling record, including many threads which address "name ordering" and "article name" and the relationship between them. --Tenmei (talk) 21:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipeia:Requests for comment/Tenmei

Qwyrxian's so-called "compromise" is impossible when mere straw man contrivances created with zero-WP:V and zero-WP:RS are presented as if they were fair restatements of the Japanese position (supported by WP:V + WP:RS). In the process of revisiting the definition of the word "compromise", I found a timely quote: "All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender. For it is all give and no take. &mdash; Mohandas Gandhi


 * G. Any complaints about me in this context are red herrings, even when there are many ways in which I could arguably improve the effectiveness of my contributions and participation.


 * Qwyrxian, edit count/pie chart
 * Nick-D, edit count/pie chart

What all four have in common is this: <!-- DRAFT TEXT (begins)

Response
''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.''

This RfC is like a "nine dots" puzzle because its issues are insolvable without outside the box thinking.

This response demonstrate 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. FACT : It is not. There is no acknowledgment of the specific questions which are presented below.



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.

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.

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.

An alternate restatement of a "Desired outcome" is needed.

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.
 * Balls in the air
 * 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.

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.
 * Senkaku islands as context

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.

The way I write is not unrelated to the subjects I write about.
 * Summary

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.

This RfC incorporates a great many presumptions and some bad faith assumptions. I did not know Qwyrxian felt as he does. He complains about many things.

I do not understand how or why this seems to have gained any degree of acceptance.

Will it help to explain that causing complaints was not my intention.

I'm sorry if my misjudgment exacerbated problems which might have been mitigated.

With regret, it is a fact that some parts of this RfC are mere posturing; but this does not blind me to the teachable moment created by constructive critical comments.

Please help me discern how I may avoid sounding like I am too stubborn to listen to others. I do not want to appear to be unwilling to accept and internalize the complaint or advice or suggestions of others.

Please help me find a way to disagree mildly while at the same time showing a cooperative, non-confrontational attitude.

Please show me where my words could have avoided seeming to have a hostile or accusing tone.

If any cause for offense could have been mitigated, please point this out.

My desire is to demonstrate both honesty and good faith in writing.

I'm sorry that the formality of my writing will continue. In life, I am somewhat formal; and this can't be helped.

In my disagreement and denials, I fear that my words may be construed to mean that I am disinterested in change or that I'm resisting constructive opinions.

This RfC had nothing to do with ensuring the academic integrity of Wikipedia project. However, my response to this malformed RfC shows my willingness to do what I can to enhance the quality of our collaborative editing process.

Paraphrasing Coren's words here:

This RfC is illustrative of an evolving issue which poisons the very essence of collaborative editing.
 * FACT : Real-world factions which vie for control over Wikipedia articles are turning them into polemical battlegrounds where surface civility is only camouflage.

We each need to recognize that long-term warriors are toxic, not vested.

Each of us needs to take a strong stand against the sorts of disruption caused by those who use our policies and conventions as weapons.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Tenmei (talk) 09:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * FACT : Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute are battlegrounds.

DRAFT TEXT (ends)

--> Bad faith]