User talk:Enkyo2/Kenchō 建長 1249/Niijima


 * Archive 456: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive456

Personal abuse and disruptive behaviour by Tenmei
Post re closure moved to bottom of thread to preserve chronological order. EyeSerene talk 10:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Complaint frames issues and context?
has been engaging in personal abuse and disruptive behaviour on the Hyūga class helicopter destroyer article and I would appreciate it if an uninvolved admin could please review this issue and take appropriate action. To summarise a long story, he has inserted text which describes these ships as aircraft carriers and is disrupting efforts to replace this with text which captures the ambiguity over the ships' classification (the Japanese government and some sources says that they are destroyers, other sources say they are helicopter carriers and other sources say they're aircraft carriers). As is shown on Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer, he has not explained the rationale for his opposition to including this text despite repeated requests from other editors, but has instead responded with a string of personal attacks on pretty much all the involved editors (for instance:, , , , (note also the rejection of the process which used to develop the consensus text in this diff and the statement that he stood aside and waited for the discussion to be complete so he could restart the discussion again, along with further personal attacks),  and ). He has been warned about making personnal attacks several times (,, and )  but they are continuing. As is clear on the talk page Tenmei was invited to explain his opposition to calling the ships anything other than carriers, but did not do so, and was invited to participate in drafting a consensus paragraph which discusses the disagreement over the ships' classification but did not participate in this discussion. Instead, a week after the discussion was completed and shortly after I added the consensus text to the article he is now demanding that the consensus on the need to discuss the ambiguity over the ships' classification be overturned and the discussion be restarted from square one (I would be happy to provide diffs for this, but it's probably easier and more meaningful to review the article's talk page directly to get a flavour for the discussion). He is still declining to provide a reason for this, however, and is continuing to make personal attacks. I believe that this behaviour is in violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:POINT and would appreciate it if an admin could please issue an appropriate sanction. Thank you. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It certainly doesn't help that Tenmei uses strong language, but I don't see it as being grossly uncivil. Until he goes around throwing insults at editors, I doubt a civility block would be in order.  However, I have fully protected Hyūga class helicopter destroyer due to the dispute, and issues should be worked out on the talk page now.  Cheers.  --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 11:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see Tenmei's comments as particularly uncivil, though if he's causing offence, he needs to rethink the way he expresses himself. Not just for that reason though... I gave up reading eventually. Talk about wading through treacle - strongly recommend he reads WP:TLDR. EyeSerene talk 12:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the responses, including protecting the page. As the edit war there is pretty slow paced and the smallish number of edits have been spread across several editors, I think that it is the nature of the discussion on the talk page which most requires intervention. I consider the comments which I've posted diffs to above to be highly rude and constitute personal attacks given the consistant complete lack of any assumption of good faith - instead there appears to be an assumption that everyone has an agenda which they're pushing other than a desire to improve the article. All requests to Tenmai that he explain his concerns and participate in resolving the dispute have been met with uncivil responses, and warnings against his behavior have had no effect. As such, I don't see how it's possible to work out the issues on the talk page as Tenmai is not willing to discuss them. Given that the behaviour has been continuing for over a week now (including a very lengthy cool down period while I waited to see if he had any comments on the consensus text before inserting it in the article) I think that external intervention is required. Nick Dowling (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would recommend the dispute resolution process. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that response. Most of the points on that process have now been tried, however. I will continue to discuss this dispute on the article's talk page, where hopefully this can be resolved. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do sympathise with your difficulties there - there's no doubt that he's disputing the consensus reached on the talk page, although I don't really understand what he's continuing to argue against, since you've mentioned the naming issues in the article. He's been warned over the reverting; that's currently not a problem now the page is protected, and if it continues once protection is lifted then a block from an uninvolved admin should follow. Maybe just ignoring him might be the best option for now? EyeSerene talk 11:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

More examples of "Personal Abuse"?
Please stop editing other editor's talk page posts

Tenmei, I have noticed that you frequently change other editors' posts on talk pages by bolding or changing the colour of some or all of their message. The talk page guidelines states that making these kind of changes is unacceptable behaviour. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have a complaint, make it specific. I don't know what you're complaining about.  It is your burden to make yourself plain, clear, understood. Vague isn't helpful in this or any other context. --Tenmei (talk) 07:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've got no problems with you removing my warning from your talk page (it's perfectly OK to do so, though the act of removing them is considered to be acknowledgment that the warning was read) but will re-post my response here.
 * I'm talking about stuff like this: and fiddling with my almost two-week old posts today for no good reason:,  and  (it's perfectly normal to link to article titles in notifications, and even if it wasn't there's no reason to edit such old posts). Nick Dowling (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that I posted the above warning on Tenmai's talk page, and he moved it here. Nick Dowling (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And this is another example of changing the formatting of someone's post: Nick Dowling (talk) 08:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems constructive to replicate this exchange which was copied from User talk:Nick Dowling. This is potentially helpful in at least two ways: (1) The gesture responds acknowledges whatever it is that so vexes Nick Dowling in this obscure "problem"(?); and (2) it convenient;y brings forward a phrase which helps tidy-up a lingering question I'd been wondering about:
 * "...the act of removing them is considered to be acknowledgment that the warning was read ...." -- Nick Dowling
 * In my view, what at first seemed to be merely odd or pointlessly petty is here converted into something potentially helpful. --Tenmei (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Purple prose equals "problem"?
The term purple prose can be construed as describing words which are seen as over-the-top, over-reaching, over-done ... too much. Stretching a point ... in a sense, it could be said that a complaint in this venue about "personal abuse" is about a kind of purple prose. For emphasis, it may be seen helpful to change the font color to purple in this expository paragraph and in illustrative text below. Arguably, it could be potentially constructive if the words which constitute personal abuse at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer were similarly modified as purple prose. As far as I can tell, this is a novel suggestion; but clearly, some will agree that this is only reasonable -- my just deserts, as it were.

The Wikipedia community has already developed other useful orthographic conventions which are attractive because the consequences are meaningful. For example: As a way of illustrating recanted views, and editor need only strike out the text from which he or she withdraws. If, in this venue or elsewhere, I could come to understand that my words deserved this orthographic modification, I would do it without hesitation. Thus far, the constructive engagement of participants in this venue has done nothing to assist me in understanding why anything whatsoever posted at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer should be re-visited and modified by striking out. The following block of text demonstrates my willingness to invest time and serious thought in learning from whatever opportunity this venue might be able to provide. Except for the comment posted by EyeSerene on my talk page, that proof of my willingness to engage these issues with sincerity, diligence, and frankness has not appeared to inspired any congruent investments. I deserve better, if not in this venue -- where? when?

I have here presented proofs of my willingness to mend the errors of my ways if convinced that I've done something I should not have done; but thus far, my open-handed approach has not served me well. Perhaps this becomes one of those times when it is best to try something new?

I'm proposing an orthographic device which I would want to be understood as crying in the wilderness. By minimizing the bulk of the following text, the words which remain in a conventionally-sized print are inevitably emphasized. For our purposes, please consider this as if I were re-reading these words aloud -- with a raised voice, with an insistent, on-edge, alarmed tone; but do not spin this gesture to mean that I withdraw from any part of what is here made small. I parsed my words before posting them, and I have parsed the sentences by grouping them together below. This sign of cautious, thoughtful and intentional draftsmanship would more conventionally seem at odds with the tenor of complaints put forward here. --Tenmei (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-framing record of "Personal Abuse"?
The meritless claim of "personal abuse" can only be evaluated in the context created by the incontrovertible record. Just to clarify the complaint, am I supposed to understand that the following represents eggregious "personal abuse"? --Tenmei (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversial sentence
This edit was controversial -- not for any reason articulated above; but nevertheless, it was suspect for a number of eminently valid, important, and arguable factors I expected to discuss here with interested, thoughtful and better-informed editors than me. That hasn't happened yet, but I have no doubt that it will. Moreover, this essential dispute would have arisen in due course without my input. This was and remains the gravamen of my carefully considered decision to post one sentence and one sentence only as a crisp addition to this article's content.

However, the exchange which has played out above never reached this high ground. Instead, I found that I'm forced to argue -- in words demonstrably consistent with Assume good faith -- that BillCJ and Nick Dowling seem to insist that the beginning and end of all issues to do with JDS Hyūga lies in maritime architecture ....

Expressed in these stark terms, can you begin to see how I might feel unmoved, adamant and puzzled? --Tenmei (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is basically a discussion over the relative merits of references.
 * No -- with all due respect : wrong --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The website supporting the PBS documentary is, simply put, not a good reference. PBS is not an authority on ship classifications and it does not cite any sources which support this classification.
 * No -- with all due respect : we're not here yet --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jane's Fighting Ships is often considered the best reference on warship classifications and statistics, and it states that these ships are helicopter carriers.
 * No -- with all due respect : potentially valid, but unavailing --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The very reliable Globalsecurity.org discusses the ships' classification and concludes that while they are "similar in design to a small aircraft carrier" and the 'destroyer' classification is a bit dubious it ends up consistently labeling them "helicopter-carrying destroyers".
 * No -- with all due respect : potentially valid, but unavailing --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * These references have been mentioned earlier, so I don't understand why you are accusing Bill and I of ""original research" or un-"verifiable" personal opinions". Nick Dowling (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No -- with all due respect : wrong --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. Please see Citation.
 * 2. Please see Citing sources.
 * 3. Please see No original research.
 * 4. Please see Verifiability. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

Is this "Personal Abuse"? Nick Dowling -- No -- with all due respect : My responses to your sentences are folded into your text so as to be emphatic and clear. Please construe the green font as yet another attempt to be very clear, comprehensible, constructive. I've replied No ad nauseam to each distinct element of your paragraph posting -- not because I want to be difficult, but rather because of the depth of disagreement you've compelled me to parse again and again and again .... --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this "Personal Abuse"? Nick Dowling frames a issue which might have been posed by someone else at some other time. His summary is not a fair characterization of the issues at hand or the questions raised. --Tenmei (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you please explain your concern then? If this isn't a discussion about the reliability of different references, what is it? Nick Dowling (talk) 06:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this "Personal Abuse"? Aha, I see. In the context Nick Dowling creates, the question above is disingenuous, disquieting in causing offense -- a bad faith gesture which heedlessly diminishes credibility. Is this "Personal Abuse"? The otherwise unremarkable note below clarifies the gambit and the context, but candidly does nothing to demonstrate any willingness to grapple with the issues on this page. --Tenmei (talk) 10:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that I've sought comments at WP:SHIP and on the Japanese and maritime history task forces of the Military History wikiprojects. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Given that you've sought comments on this dispute on three different policy noticeboards, it was appropriate to also notify the relevant Wikiprojects. I genuinely don't understand what your concern is if it isn't the reliability of the references and I would appreciate it if you could explain this. Please note that I've now cited the entire article using the external links and am removing the refimprove tag. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this "Personal Abuse"? Nick Dowling -- I've crossed out "with all due respect" above. I avoid personal attack by focusing on your words. You repeat a disingenuous question and your words have garnered my full attention. --Tenmei (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Turning lemons into lemonade
INTERPRETATION: Parsecboy 13:09, 13 July 2008
 * (a) "... commenting on the editor, instead of the issue...."
 * (b) "... allegations that Nick Dowling is intentionally mischaracterizing the issue to an uninvolved editor ..."UTC)

Is this "Personal Abuse"? '' ...my thought precisely: "intentionally mischaracterizing the issues." Thanks. Not to put too fine a point on it, yes -- disingenuous is a polite word which implies more left unsaid in an effort to maintain a mild tone. --Tenmei 13:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this "Personal Abuse"? " ... timeline which informed my modest decision to cross out "with all do respect". What you construed as unsupportable allegations were simply a matter of record.  Some questions are disingenuous -- regrettable sure, but there you have it. This gambit affected my assessment of Nick Dowling's credibility, which becomes relevant in this context. In the face of a difficult reality, my words have been seemly, appropriate, correct. --Tenmei (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 06:00, 13 July 2008 -- NPOV at Editor assistance/Requests
 * 06:32, 13 July 2008 -- Nick Dowling posts link to NPOV restatement -- see text below.
 * 06:56, 13 July 2008 -- Nick Dowling poses 1st "disingenuous" question
 * 10:57, 13 July 2008 -- Tenmei points to ND's "diminished credibility"
 * 11:14, 13 July 2008 -- Nick Dowling poses 2nd "disingenuous" question
 * 12:17, 13 July 2008 -- Tenmei crosses out "with all due respect"
 * 13:09, 13 July 2008 -- Parsecboy's negative spin on T's "allegations"

INTERPRETATION: Tenmei, I consider your above comments on me to be both uncivil and offensive and request that they cease. Nick Dowling (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this "Personal Abuse"? Uncivil and offensive are here converted into badges of honor. --Tenmei (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Mischaracterizing fellow editors with attacks?
"Optigan13's response to the words at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer was to undo them entirely -- to delete the entirety of Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer and the carefully drafted text which was added at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer.  I know of no conventional rationale which justifies that kind of action, but at the very least it should be reasonable to demand that Optigan13 meet some minimal burden of persuasion and production -- neither of which are evident here.

Optigan13 argues "... you continue to grossly mischaracterize Nick Dowling and your fellow editors efforts with attacks such as:
 * Is this "Personal Abuse"? : "if I hadn't pushed hard against Nick Dowling's unexplained resistance"
 * Is this "Personal Abuse"? :"Nick Dowling asserts with near-religious fervour"
 * Is this "Personal Abuse"? :"yes, but Nick Dowling's leadership qualities seemed to ensure that the group would also assent in wrongly construing their successes as sufficient cause" -Optigan13 (talk) 06:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The meritless claim of "personal abuse" can only be evaluated in the context created by the incontrovertible record. Included in that evaluation are two relevant facts which are external to this record: (1) Nick Dowling is an administrator; and (2) Nick Dowling is Assistant Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject , February 2008 — August 2008.

WP:AGF or alternately, WP:AGF ≥ Nick Dowling This record, consistent with WP:AGF, demonstrates my continuing efforts to bridge an identified gap. Moreover, this record shows the repeated identification of Nick Dowling as non-responsive. 12 July
 * Responding to 2nd deletion of the same sentence, ...[t]he exchange-of-views on this page focuses on demonstrably germane issues, but each contributor overlooks crucial factors which are conventionally outside-the-box in an analysis which parses engineering specs, functional prospects, etc. If outside-the-box, why? .... --Tenmei (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is going nowhere unless and until these legitimate a priori concerns are addressed. Then, maybe, we  can begin to move forward constructively. If this appears to represent a perceived obstacle, Wikipedia has a range of methods in place for dealing with otherwise intractable disputes. In this context, perhaps it's time to consider seeking mediation or some other intervention. -- Tenmei (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the following outline from Dispute resolution can assist us in moving forward:
 * 1 Focus on content
 * 2 Stay cool
 * 3 Discussing with the other party
 * 4 Truce <========== Easily achievable?
 * 5 Turn to others for help
 * 5.1 Editor assistance
 * 5.2 Ask for a third opinion
 * 5.3 Ask about the subject
 * 5.4 Ask about a policy <========== A good strategic gesture?
 * 5.5 Ask for help at a relevant noticeboard
 * 5.6 For incivility
 * 5.7 Request a comment
 * 5.8 Informal mediation
 * 5.9 Formal mediation
 * 5.10 Conduct a survey
 * 6  If the situation is urgent <========== Not relevant?
 * 7 Last resort: Arbitration
 * ... Expressed in these stark terms, can you begin to see how I might feel unmoved, adamant and puzzled? --Tenmei (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

13 July To his credit, only Bellhalla showed any willingness to grasp that I was trying vainly to focus on something non-trivial, as evidenced at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer How else is it possible to construe the following?
 * 1. Please see Citation.
 * 2. Please see Citing sources.
 * 3. Please see No original research.
 * 4. Please see Verifiability. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.
 * Nick Dowling -- No -- with all due respect : My responses to your sentences are folded into your text so as to be emphatic and clear. Please construe the green font as yet another attempt to be very clear, comprehensible, constructive.  I've replied No ad nauseam to each distinct element of your paragraph posting -- not because I want to be difficult, but rather because of the depth of disagreement you've compelled me to parse again and again and again.... --Tenmei (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

'''My patience was frayed by this point, but I was still proceeding under the assumption that this impasse was the result of a difficult-to-pierce veil of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.'''  WP:AGF or alternately, WP:AGF ≠ Nick Dowling  '''Disingenuous is a polite word for lying, for fraud -- dishonesty. What did I do when confronted with clear, specific, and astonishing evidence of Nick Dowling's lying, fraud, dishonesty? My words remained seemly, appropriate, correct.'''
 * Editor assistance/Requests
 * No original research/noticeboard
 * Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
 * Nick Dowling -- I've crossed out "with all due respect" above. I avoid personal attack by focusing on your words. You repeat a disingenuous question and your words have garnered my full attention. --Tenmei (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF offered scant guidance, but I had studied its exposition language carefully, and I was quite proper in being guided accordingly. :Accusing others of bad faith. Making accusations of bad faith ... can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence .... Although in was ineffective, I did attempt to present the evidence which informed my changed strategy: Please, I encourage you to review the timeline which informed my modest decision to cross out "with all do respect". What you construed as unsupportable allegations were simply a matter of record. Some questions are disingenuous -- regrettable sure, but there you have it. This gambit affected my assessment of Nick Dowling's credibility, which becomes relevant in this context. In the face of a difficult reality, my words have been seemly, appropriate, correct. --Tenmei (talk) 15:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 06:00, 13 July 2008 -- NPOV at Editor assistance/Requests
 * 06:32, 13 July 2008 -- Nick Dowling posts link to NPOV restatement -- see text below.
 * 06:56, 13 July 2008 -- Nick Dowling poses 1st "disingenuous" question
 * 10:57, 13 July 2008 -- Tenmei points to ND's "diminished credibility"
 * 11:14, 13 July 2008 -- Nick Dowling poses 2nd "disingenuous" question
 * 12:17, 13 July 2008 -- Tenmei crosses out "with all due respect"
 * 13:09, 13 July 2008 -- Parsecboy's negative spin on T's "allegations"


 * Tenmei, I consider your above comments on me to be both uncivil and offensive and request that they cease. Nick Dowling (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Uncivil and offensive are here converted into badges of honor --Tenmei (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal I also sought help from the WP:Mediation Cabal .... __________________________ AND YET, these not inconsiderable efforts to stay focused were not met by congruent words or actions .. and Nick Dowling instead chose to make a complaint about my "personal abuse" in this WP:AN/I venue.
 * Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal

It doesn't bode well, nor augur well. In the context of this record and WP:CIV,
 * WP:AGF ≠ trust
 * WP:AN/I ≠ trust

If this were not a pointless kangaroo court, how can I become better informed about what WP:AN/I is intended to be? --Tenmei (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I please submit the above claims that I have been commiting "lying, fraud, dishonesty" as being clear-cut personal abuse? Again, please note the repeated warnings Tenmei has recieved for the rude comments he's posted on the talk page of the article in question (reposted from above, these warnings include:, , and ]). Nick Dowling (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Along with Trout Ice Cream, I left a note for Tenmai on his talk page regarding this thread. Looking at the various diffs and talk pages, I hoped that a polite warning would suffice to alert Tenmai to the disruptive effect his editing was having, and the possible consequences of refusing to let up. This was interpreted as a threat - if I've stepped out of line, I'd welcome any clue adjustment ;)</small However, as this seems to be partly a content dispute and partly a civility issue, perhaps if Tenmai could just apologise for those comments Nick found offensive we could all move on? The article is protected, and with consensus apparently established on the talk page, further argument doesn't require a response.  EyeSerene talk 10:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Eyeserene. Tenmai's edits are indeed having a disruptive effect, and letting him know of that (and what will be done to prevent it if it doesn't cease) requires no clue adjustment. If the disruptive edits continue, I fully support the use of tools. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In the context created by the purple prose above, EyeSerene makes four constructive, on-point observations which I would rearrange in what I consider to be an interwoven, ascending order of importance:
 * 4. "The article is protected ..." -- No, not really, no. Except for the word "political" in the first sentence, the current state of Hyūga class helicopter destroyer needs no protection from me . At the first opportunity, I would substitute the more precise NPOV term, "constitutional," in place of a non-NPOV term which has been shown to have unduly trivializing, dismissive connotations; but otherwise, I would do nothing pending further published developments.  However, the moment any change is made to the final sentence in the second paragraph, the WP:NPOV problem re-surfaces anew.
 * 3. "... consensus apparently established on the talk page ...." -- No, not really, no. The tag-team ownership charade which played itself out at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer has certainly not escaped my notice -- but it remains naught but a re-telling of the old story of the Blind Men and an Elephant, naught but the sound of one hand clapping.
 * 2. "... if Tenmai could just apologise for those comments Nick found offensive we could all move on ..." -- No, not really, no. Empty words would serve no purpose here because, in addition to the fact that I'm not sorry, the fact-of-the-matter is that this tedious whatever-it-is has produced practical, measurable results which were plainly unachievable by any other means -- see third paragraph of Nick Dowling's most recent edit at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer
 * 1. "... as this seems to be partly a content dispute and partly a civility issue ...." No, not really no. YES.  In this unique context, it is conceptually awkward to conflate "content dispute" and "civility issue" but this Gordian knot formulation is somewhat congruent with Wikipedia Talk:Civility

, e.g.,
 * 'Balancing civility with the needs of the encyclopedia
 * ... civility is a tool, but a tool to be used towards what? - obviously, the goal of building a neutrally worded, reliably sourced encyclopedia. To break it down further, the specific purpose of civility is to enable the smooth functioning of the community that works to build that encyclopedia. It's a means to an end, not an end in itself - an element in the scaffolding that supports the structure, not part of the structure itself. Fundamentally, we are not here to build a community; we're here to build an encyclopedia, and civility is merely one of the tools we use to do that. When we deal with civility issues, therefore, we have to focus on what's best for the encyclopedia, not simply on what's best for the community.
 * It's thus essential that we strike a proper balance between the community goal of civility and the fundamental encyclopedic goals of NPOV, reliable sourcing etc. Focusing on civility to the exclusion of the encyclopedic goals actively harms the encyclopedia ....
 * Civility problems shouldn't be dealt with in isolation while other problems aren't tackled, as that will only send the message to editors that tendentious conduct is fine as long as it doesn't involve civility violations - seek to tackle the causes as well as the symptoms,
 * Civility is a means to an end, not an end in itself - don't prioritise it above the encyclopedia's goals. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I like where you're going with this. What I think I'm seeing is that we are in a position to develop a strategy for how the community deals with incivility. There's material on the page about how an individual can respond to incivility, but in the type of situations you're talking about, a more holistic approach is indeed required. The approach of enforcing civility as a rule — like a law, with clearly defined "violations" and consequences — isn't the best. It leads to the perception that civility is being prioritized above encyclopedic considerations. That perception is a problem, regardless of how accurate it may be .... Perhaps identifying a problem as an "incivility problem" is not helpful. Perhaps we should embrace the idea that each act of incivility takes place in the context of a larger conflict; perhaps our approach should reflect that idea. The goal would be to identify a conflict, describe its features, and choose appropriate strategies accordingly, right? How can we get better at doing that, instead of enforcing isolated "violations" of some real or imagined rule? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think you've put it well. We need to look at an approach that deals with the causes of conflict, not just the symptoms. Incivility can be both a cause and a symptom - if an editor is constantly incivil that will obviously lead to other problems .... On other occasions, it can be a symptom of frustration or aggravation at tendentious tactics being used by others. In both cases, it seems to me, the root issue is the problematic conduct on someone's part that invariably accompanies incivility. In effect, incivility is a warning flag that normal editing or talk page participation has broken down for some reason. The tactical challenge is therefore to diagnose what has gone wrong and fix it - not just by giving civility warnings (which may be totally appropriate) but also by dealing with the larger conflict. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We seem to be largely on the same page. I'm not too sure about civility warnings; I don't know if they're ever appropriate. They are often not. I'm also leery of strategies that involve identifying and neutralizing "bad guys". I tend to think that the best solutions will be article-based, or conflict-based, rather than editor-based. That said, I'd certainly support trying out just about any strategy, as long as it's done in a mindful and deliberate way. Doing that will at least generate data, and then we can re-assess strategies as to how well they worked. Simply making a conscious effort to identify and apply specific strategies is already a huge step, which should teach us a lot. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-framing record of "Disruptive Behaviour"?
The meritless claim of "disruptive behaviour" can only be evaluated in the context created by the incontrovertible record. Included in that evaluation are two relevant facts which are external to this record:
 * 1. Nick Dowling is an administrator ; and
 * 2. Nick Dowling is Assistant Coordinator of the Military history Wikiproject, February 2008 — August 2008.

The only thing "disruptive" is the fact that I persisted in the only way possible -- no other option being available as a practical matter. In the face of an unseemly tag-team ownership game, I attacked the logical fallacy implicit in the way this game was framed.

Yes, of course, I did disrupt "a" game, I suppose... yes. The tag-team ownership "game" was parsed under closer scrutiny than was within the regular players' comfort zone ... yes. But this quickly seems to beg the question - two related questions really:
 * Was that irrelevant consensus-building exercise based on the wrong "game"? By this, I mean to say in part, "Was the state of play adequately informed when Jane's Fighting Ships and Global Security.org comprise the only "gold standard" against which all else is measured?"
 * When did the task of creating a Wikipedia article become a matter of mere gamesmanship? --Tenmei (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm reluctant to post more, since I think we're going beyond the scope of this forum. Your views on civility might be best taken up somewhere else (the Village Pump perhaps?), as they relate to a general issue rather than this specific one... other than the fact that it doesn't appear you intend do a fellow editor the courtesy of assuming his good faith and retracting your personal comments. We should also not be attempting to resolve a content dispute here. The disruption, however, is pertinent, so (leaving the aspersions aside) as I understand the situation:
 * You contest the vessel's current designation as a "helicopter destroyer", preferring the term "aircraft carrier". "Helicopter destroyer" apparently comes from a number of highly respected sources (including Jane's, widely regarded as one of the top sources in the field). "Aircraft carrier" is based on a TV documentary and some newspaper reports, and is argued by other editors to be a loose description for mass-market consumption to enable viewers/readers to picture the ship.
 * You failed to gain support for your alteration on the article talk page, but repeatedly inserted it into the article anyway. Your edits have been consistently reverted by the article's other editors.
 * A discussion was opened to gauge consensus on the talk page, and recognising that there was some weight to your assertion (but taking WP:UNDUE into account), a brief sourced explanation was added to the article detailing the apparent naming confusion for the vessel class. However, you decided not to participate in the discussion because you didn't recognise this as a legitimate way of settling the issue.
 * Consensus having been established against your edit, you then resumed agitating for it (in your words, performed a "reset"), seemingly under the impression that, because of Nick's position as both an admin and a MilHist coordinator, the article's other editors had blindly followed where he led.
 * Spin it how you like, this is a textbook example of disruptive editing. There's absolutely zero evidence that Nick has behaved with anything less than complete propriety throughout, and your refusal to accept the verdict of your peers is digging you into an ever-deeper hole. Perhaps you're the innocent victim of a Nick Dowling-led MilHist conspiracy... or perhaps your proposal is wrong. I've no real desire to keep this unproductive thread alive by posting here again, but please take some advice: don't be a fanatic, stop disrupting this article, and find something else to work on. EyeSerene talk 08:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC) [emphasis added by Tenmei, 26 July]

Uhm, guys? I'm looking at the Jane's article linked in the article itself now, and it refers to the ship as a "CVHG," which translates as "Aircraft Carrier, Helicopter, Guided Missile." What's more, it then lists the section as being "Helicopter Carriers." Given that JFS says they're carriers, and a certain line from the GlobalSecurity.org article points out that "Having a displacement of about 20,000 tons... they essentially can be classified as light aircraft carriers. It is temporizing to refer to this type of vessel as a DD (destroyer).  There has never been a destroyer that exceeded 10,000 tons," I think we can safely say that the "helicopter destroyer" term does NOT come from either of these two sources.

No, this fight doesn't belong on here, but it certainly doesn't appear to be as cut-and-dried as EyeSerene is showing it to be. (Full disclosure: While I was completely unaware of these ships until this thread hit, I do personally lean towards the "helicopter/STOVL carrier" designation based on application of Justice Potter Stewart's definition of pornography to the pictures of the ships.  It's as silly as if there was a slapfight on Invincible-class aircraft carrier over whether to call them CVHs or "through-deck cruisers," the original politically-motivated designation...)  Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rdfox 76 -- You make two very, very helpful points. Thank you.
 * 1. Justice Potter Stewart's definition of pornography is a pirori more elegant than The Emperor's New Clothes, which served as the core of an alternate approach I've been trying to bring out of the sandbox. Your implied simile seems more likely to inspire a willingness to re-visit some of the otherwise unexamined assumptions which are so strongly held that they block access to the threshold I can't quite reach yet.
 * 2. Your language is superb -- better than I could have imagined. It captures the ridiculous with humour and sly derision - yes, good:
 * It's as silly as if there was a slapfight on Invincible-class aircraft carrier over whether to call them CVHs or "through-deck cruisers," the original politically-motivated designation...)
 * 3. You're on the right wave-length.  This is helpful.
 * I will have to think about this some more. --Tenmei (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I do apologise if it seems like I'm endorsing or promoting one interpretation of the sources over another in my post above. That certainly wasn't my intent; I was trying to set out the course of events rather than comment on the actual content. Whatever content issue Tenmei has (and I'm not saying he has no case) is between him and the other editors. However, a clear effort has been made to compromise, and I think the article currently does a pretty good job of explaining the whys and wherefores of this peculiar designation. There appears to be no corresponding movement on his position though, and editing disruptively and insulting other editors is absolutely not the way to get a consensus overturned - especially when one's stated intent was to disregard the discussion process and any decision reached. That's the cut-and-dried part in my view ;) EyeSerene talk 14:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * EyeSerene -- 1. Thank you for re-framing the "disruptive" issue in a way that allows me to see how it could appear that my conduct was improper. This was helpful.  I need to think about it before I respond further, but this appears to be a template which will help me figure out (1) what I could have done differently AND, (2) what I need to figure out so that I don't make a similar avoidable error in future.  For the moment, please consider the hypothesis that you have not made a mistake in investing the time and thought which can help me become a more effective and valued contributor to this Wikipedia project.
 * 2. Please believe me when I assure you that it wouldn't matter whether you endorsed or promoted one interpretation or another because we haven't even arrived at the threshold of the argument yet. Also, believe me when I assure you that I'm not trying to be perverse ... nor do I think that entirely plausible "fanatic" label is something we have to worry about.
 * I will have to think about this some more. --Tenmei (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * EyeSerene -- I have added bold emphasis to one of your sentences above: Spin it how you like, this is a textbook example of disruptive editing. I have studied the bullets in your summarized understanding of the situation. As I read what you wrote, I tick off each element -- yes, yes, yes, yes.  This is helpful.  Thank you. I need to figure out how to "spin" your text, so that your second and fourth bullets are understood as sub-sets; and then I can more comfortably respond -- no, no.  What I need to do is to revisit the record in hopes that it becomes possible to isolate pivotal opportunities for me to have averted the thread which informs each of your four bullets; and maybe at some point in the process, I'll begin to figure out how to do better in future.


 * Two aspects of my "spin" are easily stated, but this remains an unavailing step forward for now.
 * NO, I do not contest the vessel's current designation as a "helicopter destroyer", preferring the term "aircraft carrier" -- not an issue, never was except in Nick Dowling's repeated re-framing .   The premises inherent the the re-framed proposition inexorably lead only to a reaffirmation of the status quo ante.  In this context, cognitive dissonance and [confirmation bias]] converted every edit -- first to last -- into something merely disruptive, hence rejected as irrelevant or worse.
 * NO, there was no discussion ...opened to gauge consensus on the talk page. The consensus-building exercise was focused on the wrong question. After the consensus was achieved on the proposition as framed by Nick Dowling, then I thought I was learning from a Bellhalla-inspired "reset" which could approach a new question with the newly confirmed consensus as a foundation from which to build.
 * This has been an exercise in which I learned more than I expected about metastasis. Make no mistake -- I did devote close attention to every step of this evolving charade, and I'm prepared to invest more time in parsing what could have been done to mitigate the damage. I didn't understand well enough then, and I don't understand well enough now -- but we'll see if I can't figure out how to do better.  If nothing else, this tentative analysis indicates that I am seriously engaged in trying to reach towards a constructive resolution to the complaint Nick Dowling lodged in this venue.
 * It is frustrating to read Nick has behaved with anything less than complete propriety throughout; but it is even more galling to discover that I'm beginning to fathom how and why your opinion has been informed by reason and experience. This is helpful -- not dispositive, but helpful none-the-less. Thank you.
 * As for your worry that I might be a fanatic, that's probably not a problem here because I'm persuaded that a fanatic is someone who wants to achieve something more than just opening a closed door. My goals are not defined by resolving any issues which surround JDS Hyūga save one, changing its tenor from that of a dogma which is questioned only at the questioner's great peril .... --Tenmei (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note Taken to my talk page. EyeSerene talk 08:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Following post moved from top of thread to preserve chronological order EyeSerene talk 10:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please assume that all-caps is conventionally assumed to be shouting:
 * WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE?
 * I OPPOSE CLOSING THIS THREAD UNTIL I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE COMPLAINT WAS REALLY ALL ABOUT.
 * I NEED TO LEARN WHY (or if) I WAS CORRECT IN INVESTING TIME IN THIS PROCESS AND WHAT THE ULTIMATE OUTCOMES WERE. Who's kidding who?  Was this nothing more than a gambit designed solely to alarm and distract me -- and to waste my time in purposeless pursuits while the complainants who initiated this charade sit back and laugh at my naivité?  NON, whose joke is this really?

Let those who understand the context and everything else now stand forward and take credit for the whole array of things I don't understand. Just because I was too mild-mannered to ask questions yesterday doesn't mean that I haven't "found my voice" on this day. --Tenmei (talk) 09:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No-one has closed this thread. However, the reasons it was opened were:
 * Personal abuse - Nick was insulted by your comments. You believe they were justified and don't regret them, but have nevertheless been reminded of Wikipedia's civility policy and the possible consequences of violating it again. I think this is about as much resolution as we'll achieve on this point.
 * Disruptive editing - a number of editors have pointed out why your edits were disruptive, and the article has been protected. You have been reminded of the eventual consequences of disruption, and without calls for further sanctions (which no-one seems to be agitating for) this, too, would appear to be resolved within the limits of ANI's remit.
 * Further argument - ie that you attest that you acted in good faith because your actions were the only way you could get attention for your content amendment, which you believe was being misrepresented by others - is really a continuance of the content dispute that started all this, and ANI is probably not the best place for this. Other dispute resolution forums exist (see WP:DISPUTE), and since you posted to my talk page I assumed you were expressing a desire to take this discussion elsewhere. I'm happy for my talk page to serve. However, the thread remains open ;) EyeSerene talk 10:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Tenmei, does EyeSerene's reply (above) address your concerns? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ncmvocalist -- Your open-ended question is excellent -- elegantly phrased. My response for now is both "yes" and "no."
 * Yes, if by that you're asking whether EyeSerene calmed my worries that this thread would be closed prematurely. No, if you're asking if the thread should be closed today or tomorrow.
 * Yes, if by that you're asking whether EyeSerene helped me in the process of teasing out as much as I can hope to gain from this Gordian knot. No, if you're asking whether I do "get it" at last.
 * In Wikipedia, as in life, it is sometimes axiomatic that you reap what you sow ... and sometimes the harvest is meager. I can grasp the intended meaning and familiar wisdom of this old saying; and I appreciate something of its computerese counterpart -- "Garbage In, Garbage Out" (GIGO). Although this complaint is just one among many illustrations of things not working out as I would have wanted or expected, I am persuaded that, broadly speaking, there is a rough balance in terms of what I put into Wikipedia and what I take away from the experience.


 * In this WP:AN/I thread, I've put in a lot, and I'm intending to take out value-added dividends comparable or greater than I've invested.


 * In this exercise, I'm fortunate in at least two ways -- first, that I seem to have missed the point to begin with; and second, that EyeSerene seems to have guessed that I was focused on tying to achieve an uncommon "win-win" alchemy in this forum. For me, the number of hours I have invested here is oddly uncharacteristic in the sense that the focus is unrelated to pre-Meiji Japan, and I would guess that this level of time-investment is unconventional across the span of archived threads in this forum.  That said, it is only seemly that I express some minimal level of thanks for EyeSerene's apparent success in helping me figure out how to begin parsing the crucial issues; and EyeSerene helped me convert the question/answer format into a more finely-tuned instrument.


 * In the end, EyeSerene also addressed an important concern which was only vaguely understood until I had time to mull over the paragraph he posted above. The over-arching question soon becomes one of moving some issues beyond this forum to another which is better suited. A corollary has to do with allowing some trivial matters simply to fall by the wayside.  For other participants in whatever happens at WP:AN/I, this necessary realization would have come much more quickly -- but for me ..., well, let's just say that I'm still en route. --Tenmei (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Contrived Complaint
This complaint was and is contrived. Writers at the beginning of this thread commented that my writing can be be harsh. If I could think of weasel words to soften the effect, I would have used them -- I may find them in a day or so; but it won't effect the substance, nor would that superficial edit do much to help move towards a way for me to contrive something better than the confused array of problems I see today. This complaint was contrived in the way it evolved -- in its chronological history, in it genesis, and in the thoughtful planning and artifice which preceded its posting in this venue. See wiktionary: "Contrive", verb

This complaint is contrived, forced, made-up -- as the product of a guiding mind, as an intentional creation of knowing design, as artifice. See wiktionary: "Contrived", adjective

I would feel soiled for having been associated in any way with this venue if it were not for those participants in this thread who invested time and mindful attention to the onerous task of helping me come to understand what I did not understand at the beginning.

Nick Dowling's short-term purpose in bringing this complaint to this forum was to cause me harm -- me personally. At a minimum, his intention was to ensure that metaphorically I had my hand slapped a ruler, or at best, to have me barred, blocked, excluded from further participation in Wikipedia. To be redundantly clear, this should not be interpreted as more "personal abuse." The record of this thread identifies a problem and suggests solutions; and this produces consequence I ignore at my further peril. This is not a complaint; it's just the way it is.

Nick Dowling's mid-term purpose in this complaint was to so intimidate me and others so that none would have the temerity to cross him again. In this, it doesn't feel good to learn that I'm not really alone here. This, too, should not be interpreted as "personal abuse." I've identified a valid consequence; it's just the way it is.

Nick Dowling's short-term and long-term purposes were married in this complaint as part of an intentional plan to ensure the Tenmei-username would be discredited a priori in any future talk page discussions at [User talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer]] and elsewhere. This is isn't "personal abuse"; it's just the way it is.

Fortuitously, what began as a disingenuous exercise has been mitigated in the most important way -- that is, EyeSerene and others have helped me begin to see how this awkward scenario appears from a neutral perspective. The best of the helpful sentences in this thread explains to me: Spin it how you like, this is a textbook example of disruptive editing. With regret, I have to admit that I still can't make the needed connections between this appearance of doing something wrong and specific instances when I can see for myself that I made a poor choice amongst a number of options when I did or did not do something specific. This should not diminish one unassailable fact: it was no mean accomplishment for EyeSerene and others to have been brought along this far.

In the process of investigating the record in an effort to come to grips with what I'd done in a sequence of words and actions which went so terribly awry, I discovered rather more than what I thought I was looking for. Forunately, I still have succient good sense to try not to allow myself to be too distracted from the constructive path EyeSerene has pointed out.

There remains more to this difficult problem than figuring out what I could have done differently in the past; and preparing a future in which I'll be likely to handle new issues differently because of what hard lessons learned in 2008. In due course, this worm will turn, but not today. --Tenmei (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)