Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands

Arbitrators active on this case
Active:
 * 1) Casliber
 * 2) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
 * 3) David Fuchs
 * 4) Jclemens
 * 5) John Vandenberg
 * 6) Kirill Lokshin
 * 7) Mailer diablo
 * 8) Newyorkbrad
 * 9) PhilKnight
 * 10) Risker
 * 11) Roger Davies
 * 12) SirFozzie

Inactive:
 * 1) Cool Hand Luke
 * 2) Iridescent
 * 3) Xeno

Recused
 * 1) Coren
 * 2) Elen of the Roads

Statement by Ajl772
Technically speaking, I should have been notified as well, since I was involved (albeit briefly) in attempting to get to some sort of dispute resolution running (specifically by filing a MedCom request). However I withdrew from that for various reasons, which I will list at a later time, as well as providing a statement, which will be included in this section (but for now, I need to sleep). – AJLtalk 10:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to follow the example of Tenmei – by striking out my comments – and not participate in this. I have better things to do with my life than argue over some stupid islands I don't care about get involved in petty disputes about who is "right" or "wrong," and the possible ramifications of who gets disciplined/reprimanded/etc. I'm done. – AJLtalk 07:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Eraserhead1
I have no interest in this topic whatsoever - I don't even know where these islands are.

However I do think that its important to solve disputes rather than leave them hanging - that's why I took the abortion case to the mediation cabal rather than just walking away. I also appreciate that you guys have a big workload but ultimately I think that if all the steps in the dispute resolution process have been tried - and formal mediation has failed - then that in itself is a conduct issue that should be addressed by somebody. Maybe the only solution is to topic ban everyone who is involved in the dispute and let new editors take over, maybe you can draw a line in the sand between the disruptive behaviour and the non-disruptive behaviour but it shouldn't just be left hanging as that isn't good for anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eraserhead1 (talk • contribs)

Demand for an apology from Qwyrxian
(moved from workshop by Clerk)

Re: Qwyrxian's statement, "Some editors have held that no matter what consensus says, the current article title will never be acceptable."

Please note the following facts:
 * I have never held that "no matter what consensus says, the current article title will never be acceptable".
 * There is no consensus on the current article title "Senkaku Islands".
 * My position on the article title is purely based on Wiki neutrality policy.

The "Statement by Qwyrxian" on the case implies me that I have behavioral problem because of my position on the article title, and it also implies me that I was one of the editors who caused the failure of the mediation. I must ask Qwyrixian to clarify his Statement on the case and to apologize publicly for damaging my reputation. STSC (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. I believe that should be clarified, because that sounded like it was implying STSC likes to IDIDNTHEARTHAT and was actively filibustering the process (when he was, in fact, a valuable contributor). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am willing to apologize if STSC is willing to clarify that, should consensus (again) show preference for the Senkaku Islands title (via whatever method we pursue once the Arbitration is done), that xe will accept that result. Your explicit statement which I linked said, "Whatever, the title with the Japanese name is never "NPOV" as long as Japan is one of the participants in the territorial dispute."  Did I misunderstand what you said?  To me, your words mean that you believe that even if the community consensus is in favor of the current article (as it was at the last RfC), that you still will insist the title is wrong and insist upon the NPOV-title tag remaining?  If that is what you meant, then we have a problem, because you're saying that you won't accept community consensus until it matches your own personal opinion about the title and our policies. So if you will state that you will accept whatever consensus says on the title, then I will apologize for misunderstanding you.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you should be careful about using consensus to coerce others from pursuing minority views. Even if there is a majority support for a given notion, it doesn't mean the supported idea is correct. Rather it just implies the majority of those (most likely less than 10) opinions out of billions of people in this world favoured that idea. Instead of placing emphasis on the votes, it's more important to focus on the quality of arguments (as suggested in CONSENSUS).
 * Personally, I wouldn't accept the fact that pigs can fly even if 2000 felt that's true in an RfC. However, I can be convinced that a Korean is the mitochondrial eve if there are scientific evidence that supports it... even if 20 Catholic priests say that's b.s. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Qwyrxian said, "We've established before that the title is NPOV." and I replied directly to this comment. Consensus or not was not the issue in my reply. He didn't misunderstand me; he in fact willfully misrepresented me in his statement on the case. Please Qwyrxian do not try to deflect my demand for your unreserved apology. STSC (talk) 07:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * STSC, so you're trying to tell us that whilst you don't see "Senkaku Islands" as being NPOV under any circumstances, if others Wikipedians agreed to keep the article title as it is, you would recognise that as consensus? I'm not sure how much I believe you, given that one of the problems is that proponents of changing the article name say that there is no consensus to keep it as it is, rather than admit they can't get consensus to change it. It's not like the article title was set as something else for most of the history of the article and then one person suddenly changed it. Come on, this is a red-herring. This is precisely the sort of thing you can address in your evidence. Perhaps you should expand on what you've already submitted to put your side of the story. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 09:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not discussing other issues under this motion. STSC (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand John Smith's statements either. But to clarify a little bit, I'd like to point out that the article name was initially a bold change by someone that was actually not widely accepted. The change stayed simply because there was a lot of wiki-lawyering going on and that somehow proponents of the move to "Senkaku Islands" decided to declare that a consensus was required to move the article back out of "Senkaku Islands". Since Wikipedia was still at relative infancy at 2003, I wouldn't at all be surprised if the average editor had less awareness of the rules back then. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Further request for apology
Qwyrxian, you have clearly misrepresented my words in your statement on the Arbitration case. I'm trying to resolve this amicably with you before further steps will be taken in the Dispute Resolution. I ask you again politely to withdraw unconditionally the misrepresentation in your statement by a declaration on this talk page (since your statement cannot be modified on the Main Case page). If you think you can freely put your own words into other editors' mouth then your suitability as an administrator must be highly questionable. STSC (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a rough idea of how he might've mis-represented your position in his statements, but it'd be nice if you can elaborate on the specifics. Otherwise, the ambiguities can lead to an unnecessarily long exchange. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * STSC has asked for my apology, stating that I have "willfully misrepresented" his position in my Statement. Unfortunately, I cannot apologize, because I honestly don't understand what misrepresentation I've made.  I've asked for STSC to clarify what it was, in fact, that xe meant, but xe has refused to do so.  However, I will try to be very careful and restate what I said in my Statement.  I said that one problem with past discussions is that "Some editors have held that no matter what consensus says, the current article title will never be acceptable."  That statement is strictly my interpretation of the events that have occurred at talk.  Specifically, I linked to a diff by STSC from May 2011, which stated, in full, "You too are not assuming good faith by saying '... simply because you don't agree with the name'. As mentioned above, the purpose of the tag is to invite inputs on the questionable title. Whatever, the title with the Japanese name is never "NPOV" as long as Japan is one of the participants in the territorial dispute." My first interpretation of that statement is that STSC will always consider "Senkaku Islands" to be a non-neutral title as long as Japan is involved in the real world dispute about the islands.  That much, I don't think I've misinterpreted, since it's very close to what STSC actually said. I further interpreted that statement (based in part on this specific conversation, but also based on other positions that STSC has taken throughout the discussion) to mean that STSC would always insist upon moving the name to another title, and/or would always insist that the "NPOV-title" tag should remain; I further interpreted those words to mean that this insistence would remain no matter what the results of any DR process might be. This interpretation was based on the fact that STSC was editing the article actively during at least 2 of the community DR processes--a RM which closed as no consensus to move and an RfC, that, while not formally closed, had every single uninvolved editor support the current name. That statement by STSC was after both of the DR.  It seems that my interpretation of xyr words does not match STSC's own, though I do not actually know what xe meant definitively (of course, no one ever knows what anyone else "means", but that's a post-modern discussion for another place). I do apologize that I did not clarify that the words I wrote in my Statement were not STSC's literal words and instead were my interpretation of those words. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you love to talk about how people supported no change in the RfC, let me quote the entirety of your post to show how helpful that block of text was:
 * Problem: What name should be used for this article and the related Senkaku Islands dispute article? The quick summary is that the ownership of these islands is in dispute between Japan, China, and Taiwan. As such, each side applies its own name(s) to the islands. The question is, what should the title be in English Wikipedia?


 * Background: In the sources, sometimes the name Senkaku Islands (Japanese name) is used, sometimes Diaoyu or Diayoutai or Tiaoyu or Tiaoyoutai Islands(Chinese names, various different transliterations), sometimes both are used, as in "Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands" or "Diaoyu-Senkaku Islands", and, very rarely and primarily in very old texts, an English translation of the name, Pinnacle Islands, is used. There is a dispute among the various regular editors about how often each naming variant is used in various sources (scholarly articles, encyclopedias, general internet, news articles, etc.). Furthermore, there is dispute about how to interpret these results in the context of the relevant policies for naming places and article titles, the most notable of which are WP:Article titles (in particular, the section Considering title changes), WP:NPOV (in particular, the subsection Naming), and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) (in particular, the sections Widely accepted name and Multiple local names).
 * In short, there are no diff's, nothing on research regarding on common name usage, nothing about how the current name was chosen without consensus. Even though I tried to add more content to it later, it was too late. Now, how many 3rd party opinions did we have? A grand total of 4? Did I miss any? Not surprisingly, one of the main arguments is COMMONNAME, namely the Japanese version is far more common. If my memory serves, our evidence is clearly against that notion already.
 * You know, it's very easy to stack the deck in a RfC. One way to do that is to CANVAS, which I don't think you did. Another way would be to leave out critical information. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested comment
I was asked to come here and "offer a short statement on [my] involvement with the protection" of the Senkaku Islands pages. On both of them, I've changed protection levels a couple or three times, usually as a result of edit warring or editors promising to not edit war (which has generally been proven to be a false promise). The section directly above this one is a classic example of editors demanding things of other editors rather than laying their blatant nationalistic biases aside and working together in a spirit of cooperation. The main article has been in existence since October 23, 2003, and within a few months the disputes were already forming. It's really sad that it's come to arbitration, but I honestly don't see how anything other than generous application of a cluebat is going to do anything here. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 04:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the real motive behind Qwyrxian's bringing up this procedure?
(moved from workshop by clerk) I had never received any complaint from him and he had never discussed with me regarding his allegations. Then, all of a sudden, he dug out some of my old arguments with other editors in the talk page about one year ago (as he could not find any real evidence) and then ridiculously accused me as "causing the bulk of the problems". This is just character assassination. It's normal that there are heated exchanges during discussion in a talk page; I made comments on other editors' behaviour in general but no personal attacks. Moreover, Qwyrxian was not even involved with the articles at that time and would not have known the real circumstances. He is so egocentric that he thinks he can judge anyone by his own "interpretation". Why is Qwyrxian desperately trying to build up a case against me soon after I strongly opposed him to be elected as an administrator?


 * Sorry, but, are you joking about the RfA bit? Your logic doesn't make any sense, as I'm also trying to get Tenmei and Bobthefish2 banned from the articles, even though they supported me in my RfA, and I'm not trying to get Lvhis banned from the articles, even though Lvhis also opposed me. In other words, there is absolutely no correlation between your !vote on my RfA and my actions here.  As to why I dug up those diffs, it's because, in preparation for my evidence, I went through every archived discussion on both Talk:Senkaku Islands and Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute, as well as quite a number of the conversations had by the participants in other places like user talk pages.  That's when I found your comments from before I was an editor on these articles.  When I put your more recent actions in the context of those older comments, it became my belief that your attitude is overall incompatible with collaborative editing with respect to this topic.  However, as I said elsewhere, I would be comfortable with you continuing to edit so long as you agree to accept consensus decisions and participate helpfully without treating the articles or their talk pages as a battleground.
 * Finally, I reject your idea that what I do with judgment is different from what anyone else does in the world. Everyone judges based on interpretation. There is no such thing as "judging based on facts"; everyone takes in sensory data, and filters it through his/her own preconceptions, biases, paradigms, and world views, and then judges what those "facts" "mean".  There is no such thing as a literal meaning of words, or a fact which can be detached from an associated point of view.  Then, when we want others to concur with our interpretations, we attempt to persuade them that our interpretations make sense.  So, yes, my claims about your words are my interpretations, but that's only because it would be impossible for them to be anything else.
 * Of course you would be selective on your targets to hide your motive. And please don't speak as if everyone is under your mercy on this case. You still continued to be silly and ridiculous in saying, "my claims about your words are my interpretations, but that's only because it would be impossible for them to be anything else." STSC (talk) 03:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, and perhaps Bobthefish2 was strategically !voting for Q because he knew it would pass anyway, and wanted to stay on his good side. Of course, I don't necessarily believe this, but going by your logic we might as well start questioning everyone's motives. IMO the fact that STSC is even proposing an idea so palpably silly (that Q would ignore his best judgment on 3 other editors just to make his sinister agenda against 1 editor - STSC - look stronger) speaks to his poor discernment for the facts on the ground. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not an obscure speculation at all. Lvhis and STSC are hardly ranked among the most disruptive editors involved and yet they were nominated to be indefinitely banned by two administrators. And that's all without any attempt to go through any DR's to addressed their supposed problems. Good faith or not, this is evidence that administrative tools should not be entrusted to people who exercise poor judgment when they are involved in a dispute. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I have never once suggested Lvhis be topic banned or blocked (i.e., only one admin has), and I have further clarified that I do not believe that STSC needs to be banned if xe is willing to commit to following consensus and dropping xyr battleground mentality. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was a bit unclear: You advised for STSC's ban and Magog advocated Lvhis' block. By the way, it is unethical to criticize single STSC and I with regards to "battleground mentality". Reasons is that, based on your definition, practically everyone of us here (barring infrequent participants like Penwhale) harbour some rather substantial extent of battleground mentality. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've presented my evidence justifying why I think STSC's behavior is fundamentally different--nothing unethical about arguing that one set of behaviors is different from another. At this point, it's up to Arbcom to figure out if my interpretation is sound.  Qwyrxian (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the "fundamental difference". The diffs I provided have shown that others have done pretty much the same. Such as suggesting there is an "ulterior motive on the other side" and deriding others' posts/contents as POV. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's called back-stabbing, it seems in all those days he had been quietly plotting to silent me. He did not even have the courtesy to raise any issue with me personally. STSC (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not really backstabbing, because he never really did betray you in anyway. I doubt he really plotted against you either. I suspect he simply thought it's a good opportunity to get rid of another opponent, since I don't think you were any more rude or entrenched than the average active participant here... but then again he may be genuine about his expressed perception (although that doesn't make is any less misguided). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * He should feel ashamed now you've defended him, but his knife is still stuck on my back, what shall we call it? STSC (talk) 04:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify: I don't think he needs to be ashamed of being defended on this particular point, because he really did not backstab you. Yes, he did (in my humble opinion) pick on you in an inappropriate and potentially unprofessional way, but the concept of backstabbing requires both parties to have some sort of liaison that does not seem to exist in this particular context. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Backstabbing is: attacking (someone) unfairly, especially in an underhand, deceitful manner. STSC (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies >_<. I've always thought of "backstabbing" as something that is intrinsically associated with betrayal. It appears the dictionary says otherwise. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There's another definition of "backstabbing" from a dictionary: harmful and unfair things that are said or done to hurt the reputation of someone. I shall rest my case. STSC (talk) 02:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Use of Feezo's RfA statement by Qwyrxian to boost his standing in the arbitration
Questions need to be answered: I'm criticizing Qwyrxian's extreme egocentric mentality, is that the same behavior that caused Feezo to support him? STSC (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Being a mediator, is Feezo supposed to be neutral in this arbitration?
 * Can Feezo's RfA statement be used in such a manner by Qwyrxian in the arbitration?
 * Qwyrxian said, "The behavior STSC is criticizing for is the same behavior that caused Feezo to support my RfA."

Clarification request: Senkaku Islands
Initiated by  Lothar von Richthofen (talk) at 16:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC) List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)
 * 
 * 
 * Notification on original AN/I thread:

Statement by Lothar von Richthofen
I am an uninvolved third party in this dispute; the issue came to my attention in this AN/I thread (further background may be found there). At the locus of the dispute is the status of Ryukyu Islands of Japan with regard to the Senkaku dispute. Under the WP:DISCSANC remedies for the Senkaku case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for the articles pertaining to the Senkaku Islands dispute, broadly construed, per remedy 7. Articles relating to other disputed islands in the region may also be subject to discretionary sanctions, but only for a fixed time period after a convoluted vetting process per remedy 8. The question is: can the Ryukyus reasonably be considered to fall under automatic DISCSANC per remedy 7, or are they sufficiently removed to be considered to fall under remedy 8?

From the Japanese standpoint, the Senkakus are part of the Ryukyus, but the Ryukyus are not part of the Senkakus (kind of like squares and rectangles). This would suggest that remedy 7 holds true here. From the standard Chinese standpoint, the two are distinct geographical entities. This would suggest remedy 8 might be the case. However, there is a camp within the Chinese faction which extends the Diaoyu claim to other parts of Okinawa Prefecture, including the Ryukyus. This would suggest remedy 7.

So would Chinese-Japanese disruption on Ryukyu Islands-related pages—but not necessarily Senkaku pages strictu senso—qualify as still falling within the scope of the Senkaku Islands dispute? I'm inclined to believe that they do, but there is sufficient greyness here to give me pause.

More generally, I believe that the scope and mechanism of remedy 8 merit clarification. What does "if the editing community is unable to reach consensus on the proper names" mean? Does "editing community" refer only to the "local" editors, or to the "community" at large? If the latter, is an RfC or similar process necessary to determine lack of consensus? Is this applicable only to disputes where two significant factions create gridlock on naming, or may tendentious lone-wolf disruptors also create cause for sanctions? What about cases not strictly related to naming, but to other aspects of national pride/control? How formal is this "one month period" following the warning supposed to be?

I believe that the remedies of this case are not worded well enough to know where and how they are applicable, and this merits clarification. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * @Ryulong: Given that the Ryukyus are peripheral at least to the general tension between Japan and the two governments claiming sovereignty over China and how MA's POV falls within the scope of this conflict, I felt that this case needed some clarification. Broadly contstrued, I think the DISCSANC may be applicable, I just am not sure how "broadly construed" it is. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * @MA: I'm not an arbitrator, bud. And I can't change the title to Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ryukyu Arc because there is no such case. I'm of the mind, however, that the Ryukyu Arc falls within the scope of the Senkaku case. I'm just asking the arbitrators to clarify their decision. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * @SilkTork: But given the nature of MA's behaviour here, I'm not sure your Troubles analogy works that well. This would be more akin to radical Nationalist pushing the POV that the Isle of Man and the Hebrides are part of Ireland, not just unrelated disruption on Isles pages (even that's not a great analogy). As noted above, there is a fringe camp on the Chinese side of the Senkaku dispute which extends the "Diaoyu" claim to the entire Ryukyu chain (source). Based on this, I think that the Ryukyus could fall at the periphery of the Senkaku dispute and so fall under WP:SENKAKU #7. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * My understanding of the case is that it deals with the Senkaku Islands dispute, not the islands themselves per se. While all Ryukyus are not Senkakus, the Ryukyus at large do fall towards the periphery of the dispute . Again, I don't think that article-level sanctions are in order for this now-indeffed troublemaker. I was more curious whether MA's disruption in the area would fall under remedy 7; my questions regarding remedy 8 are more of a general "how on earth is this supposed to be actually implemented?" nature. Not that it's terribly important at this juncture, though.  Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * @NYB: Which remedy are you referring to? Clearly it falls within the whole "disputed Asian islands" category (remedy 8), but does it fall within the Senkaku dispute (remedy 7)? Given the close relatedness of the islands and the fact that the Chinese claim to the Senkakus is sometimes extended to all of the Ryukyus (as in this particular incident), I personally think it does. I'd also like some clarification as to the convoluted mechanism of remedy 8, as explained in my initial statement. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I also don't think that D/S are necessary for the article (I'm also uninvolved in the underlying content dispute there). The main reason why I brought this here was that I was about to take MA to AE, where things generally get resolved more decisively than on the main dramaboard, but I couldn't figure out A) if/how the remedies were applicable and B) how remedy 8 was supposed to work. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * @Shrigley: Flying personal accusations of "nationalism" and speculations on user ethnicity are irrelevant distractions here from the central issue of POV editing. The Ryukyus are indeed included in some Chinese claims. Perhaps not the "official" ones, but see e.g. here: "A well-connected government research institute, the Council for National Security Policy Studies, led by a retired general of the government's paramilitary force, said Japan should also give up the Ryukyu island chain." So it is not entirely correct to contend that the Ryukyus fall outside the scope of the WP:SENKAKU remedies. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

As MA has now been blocked, the discussion here is moot. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Closure is warranted. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Ryulong
was simply disrupting the article Ryukyu Islands from some as of yet unclear (but as far as I can tell Taiwanese nationalist) point of view and I requested intervention, particularly because of content forking and now repeated claims that I am not qualified to edit Wikipedia or that I have some sort of alterior motive. Asami is not here to edit constructively, and I saw ANI as the venue to have him removed posthaste. I honestly don't think that the Senkaku ARB case really carries here but seeing as Asami claims that the Senkakus are the Diaoyus and belong to Taiwan there might be some merit here.

Oh, and all of this was nice, too.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 05:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

A third posting of his claims that I am not qualified to edit Wikipedia, because I have some alterior motive.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 05:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. And Lothar, I guess you are right that it is worth looking into, particularly because Asami believes that the Senkaku Islands are not part of the Ryukyu Islands and should be called the Diaoyu Islands. However, I'm not sure of the reasoning behind his disruption to remove any and all mentions of the northern island chains from the page as well as constantly insisting that the Japanese definition of the islands be used rather than the ones both the US, UK, PRC, and ROC use that are pretty much independent but all identical.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 09:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Masanori Asami's comments below further illustrate that he is not competent enough to edit the English Wikipedia. He persists in attacking myself and Lothar, believes that the "Senkaku" moniker should be changed just for this dispute, and continues to bring up the content dispute despite this not being the proper venue.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 15:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * @Shrigley: I realize that my original nationalistic labeling was incorrect. I've mentioned this in the ANI thread that this germinated from (also I'm far from being Japanese).— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 05:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Masanori Asami
This statement has been deleted[]. AGK [•] 21:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by EauOo
The Ryukyu arc is a subduction zone. It is well-decribed and defined by tectonic and seismic studies of the Phillipines plate subducting eastward under the Eurasian plate and by associated geophysical studies of gravity anomalies, the adjacent trenches, and the subduction zone to the east. I can't imagine what there is to arbitrate, the Boso Triple Junction? There are some interesting complications and questions, but it seems unlikely that a redefinition will occur in cyberspace outside of some new scientific knowledge. Eau(W)oo (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Drat I had popcorn, beer and three structural geologists lined up to enjoy this. Eau(W)oo (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Shrigley
Historically, the only disruption around the Ryukyu Islands group of articles has been from Japanese editors who want to change the definition of "Ryukyu" away from the common English definition to a more restrictive Japanese government definition, in order to redefine more people and territory as mainland Japanese, rather than as Ryukyuan (which Japanese equate to "Okinawan").

This dispute is a continuation of the same old, same old, and has nothing to do with Chinese nationalist claims. In fact, the ANI discussion has progressed to a point where the user (Masanori Asami) who Ryulong accused of being a Chinese nationalist, has accused Ryulong himself of being a Chinese nationalist. I'm glad that all of us thoughtful people on Wikipedia can agree that Chinese nationalism is the problem, rather than non-neutral editing in general.

Ryulong insists on defining Ryukyu as "everything between Kyushu and Taiwan", which is basically correct from the English-language point of view. However, Ryulong improperly tried to tie this content dispute to the recent arbitration case by asking MA's personal opinion about whether Diaoyu belongs (politically) to Ryukyu or to Taiwan. This talk page chatter is irrelevant; neither editor is editing the article around which the arbitration case was based.

So clearly remedy 7 doesn't apply. Remedy 8 would not even apply if the wording were to be taken strictly, because the issue of how to define the Ryukyus is not a "territorial dispute", which refers to sovereignty disputes between states. No government on either side of the Taiwan strait bases their sovereignty claim to Diaoyu on a redefinition of the Ryukyu Arc. So this is not "Chinese-Japanese disruption", and I see no prospect of it around "Ryukyu" in the future; this is routine Japanese-Japanese disruption, which is fairly easily suppressed - as it was before, with users like Nanshu - without recourse to AE. Shrigley (talk) 05:29, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Tijfo098
Shrigley is right. The issue that Masanori Asami was arguing about is the the official Japanese name of the Ryukyu islands, which is the lesser known name of Nansei[-shoto]; see for some background&mdash;basically the US top negotiations extended the name Ryukyu to apply to islands not known as such, despite the advice from their own experts. This has nothing to do with territorial disputes with other countries as far as I can tell (although it may well involve internal Japanese politics and their dislike of a Chinese-sounding name as explained in the last source I linked; see Ryukyu independence movement for another possible reason). Masanori Asami indicated at one point that he was associated with the Japan Geoscience Union (see pdfs linked there). His competence in wikistuff is clearly lacking; another potential expert that got a boot to his face for welcome. Anyway, this dispute has been going on for a long time (6 years or more), and I've not seen anyone try to invoke the Senkaku ArbCom case before as applying to it. And I'm not surprise that to a newcomer to Wikipedia it seemed utterly strange to invoke that issue. He was blocked for loudly protesting the case name basically. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * As there is confusion regarding the matter, a clarification seems appropriate. It appears that the Senkaku Islands are part of the Sakishima Islands which in turn are part of the Ryukyu Islands, so while related there is a degree of separation akin to Ireland and the British Isles. Someone editing an article on the Isle of Man should not be subject to remedies related to The Troubles unless the material they were editing actually related to The Troubles. The sanctions in Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands applied a remedy specifically to the article currently named Senkaku Islands and then a separate remedy to all other islands in the area. It would appear to me that Ryukyu Islands are not another name for the topic which is currently named Senkaku Islands, and so remedy 8 would apply. I'm not sure how to reword the remedy to make it clearer that remedy 7 only applies to "The topic covered by the article currently located at Senkaku Islands". The wording seems fairly precise, and is worded such as the name of the article was being changed.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  10:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Lothar von Richthofen. My intention was to make the link that the Senkaku Islands are part of the Ryukyu Islands in the same way that Ireland is part of the {{British Isles]] (which includes the Isle of Man). There is a specific remedy for the the Senkaku Islands (remedy 7) and a broader remedy for nearby islands (remedy 8). The wording is fairly clear on that, though worded as such because the name of the article was changing. Remedy 7 applies to the Senkaku Islands under whatever name they are called. It would take a significant leap to make the Senkaku Islands include the Ryukyu Islands, on a scale equivalent to Ireland including the British Isles. In this instance remedy 8 applies; the questions remaining are - does the remedy wording need amending to make it clearer (I'm not sure it can be clearer), and do we need to have a motion so that remedy 7 now explicitly covers the Ryukyu Islands. As NYB says below, that might be a bit strong just for one disruptive user. Is there evidence of other disruption on Ryukyu Islands articles that might warrant a move from remedy 8 to remedy 7?  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Lothar von Richthofen. If a user feels that there is a naming dispute occurring on an article dealing with an island in East Asia, they would need to inform an admin who would then make a decision as to what to do. The user could contact an admin directly or via an admin noticeboard, including, as this comes under ArbCom, the AE noticeboard.
 * If the person who prompted this query has been blocked, and you feel your questions have been addressed, is this matter now closed and the clerks can archive this?  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  12:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * A clerk can close this as resolved.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  20:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}
 * I believe the intent of the remedies in the Senkaku Islands case is broad enough to allow an administrator to impose discretionary sanctions concerning Ryukyu Islands and Ryukyu Arc, even though there is no current sovereignty dispute (that I'm aware of) concerning the Ryukyus. If anyone strongly disagrees, then an an arbitrator motion here to clarify the situation might be warranted. However, before anyone imposes discretionary sanctions, I would ask whether there are serious, chronic problems with these articles (as was the case with the Senkaku Islands and before that with the currently-in-the-news Liancourt Rocks). If the problem basically arises from a single disruptive editor, then invoking the whole rigmarole of discretionary sanctions may be unnecessary and more traditional ANI type remedies might suffice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In response to the follow-up question, it clearly falls within 8 and it very borderline falls within 7. If it's ambiguous and we really need discretionary sanctions on this article, I'll make a motion. But I'm still not convinced this problem doesn't involve more than one disruptive editor (and/or a content dispute, I add so I'm not prejudging), in which case it should resolvable more straightforwardly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with SilkTork: Given that the editor who provoked the ANI thread that led to this thread is now blocked indefinitely (and if he is ever unblocked it would likely be with restrictions no this topic-area), and that there don't seem to be any other disputes regarding the Ryukyus at this time, this appears to be moot at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification (June 2013)

 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=560254456#Clarification_request:_Senkaku_Islands Original discussion]

Initiated by  Oda Mari (talk) at 06:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Notified. SummerRat, Lvhis , and Shrigley except a sock User:Acamar Eridanus. Oda Mari (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Oda Mari
In order to prevent edit warring, the usage of "Senkaku" and "Diaoyui" should be clarified like WP:NC-SoJ. User:SummerRat has been topic banned. See User talk:SummerRat because of, and other similar edits. Similar edits by other editors are, , and.
 * I am withdrawing my request as this is not the right place. Oda Mari (talk) 07:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
I am not at all familiar with the topic area, but this sounds like it is asking the committee to make a decision in favour of one or other naming convention. That is something the committee is likely to consider a content decision and thus outside their remit. They may consider endorsing a poll as they did for Ireland article names (Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names, WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names) but it is likely that they would want to see evidence of a normal RfC having failed first - has this been tried since the arbitration case closed? If not then I suggest that as the best course of action is a structured RfC closed by a neutral administrator. Such an RfC would obviously be covered under the discretionary sanctions authorised by this case for "The topic covered by the article currently located at Senkaku Islands, interpreted broadly" and so arbitration enforcement would be available for disruptive users (if necessary). Thryduulf (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Shrigley
NC-SoJ addresses the Sea of Japan, for which there is only one, unqualified internationally-accepted name in English. On the other hand, when discussing these islands, usage is normally split or hyphenated. News articles primarily dealing with China will say, "Diaoyu Islands, known as Senkaku in Japan"; articles dealing primarily with Japan will say "Senkaku Islands, known as Diaoyu in China". The article is titled with the Japanese name, "Senkaku Islands", simply because usage is split about 50-50, the alternative neutral English name (Pinnacle Islands) is not used much, and there's no consensus to go to the Chinese name, which would be equally biased but in the opposite direction.

SoJ dealt with the sustained problem of aggressive Korean meatpuppets going to any and every article to replace "Sea of Japan" with the obscure, parochial, and nonsensical English calque of "East Sea". No such problem exists on these Sino-Japanese islands, since the topic is of wider interest to the broader English-speaking community. However, Oda Mari has been rewriting long-stable China-related articles to erase all instances of "Diaoyu" or replace them with "Senkaku", butchering direct quotes and obscuring the proper names of movements and organizations: these from his own examples brought to C&A.

My advice to Oda Mari: don't seek some sort of "ruling" to prohibit the use of "Diaoyu" anywhere on Wikipedia, because:
 * 1) There is no such mechanism outside the most drastic arbitration measures, which I doubt could even do this because of #3;
 * 2) There is no longer a problem of sustained tendentious editing; even the last arbitration case was mostly unpleasant talk page discussion
 * 3) The real-world, reliable source conditions are ambivalent, and Wikipedia cannot deviate from them too much.

There is nothing for Arbcom to do here, except perhaps to admonish Oda Mari for stirring the pot.

Statement by EdJohnston
Since WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands provides for discretionary sanctions, and the recent edit war does not present any new issues not previously addressed by Arbcom, the best place to open a request would be at WP:Arbitration enforcement. As the committee stated in the Senkaku case, "When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process, in lieu of soapboxing, edit warring, or other inappropriate behavior." Any article edits which change the name 'Senkaku' to 'Diaoyu' or vice versa can be presented at AE to decide if enforcement is appropriate. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Lvhis
I completely agree what user Shrigley has stated above. NC-SoJ is totally a WRONG example for this Diaoyu/Senkaku articles or case here. I was one of the participants of that WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands. It was not to decide what is the correct name for these islands or for the wp articles. Now user SummerRat has been topic banned for 6 months. To apply same standard and to be fair and equal, user Oda Mari should also be topic banned. She has violated what WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands has banned more than what user SummerRat did.

As for what name should be for the relevant wp pages/articles, RfC is the way to go. The last "RfC" has been expired on January 1, 2013. Although I oppose this "RfC" because it was done in the situation and atmosphere neither fair nor justicial to solve the naming issue as I pointed here, I did not touch any pages related to this name until I saw so obvious and blatant POV and Original Research using Japanese name for Chinese stance, organization, etc. Now it may be the time to open a new RfC from a root question in related talk page.

In any case, Wikipendia cannot be the place for Original Research --Lvhis (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Qwyrxian
As one of the participants in the original arbitration, I'd like to weigh in: the clarification requested is not within the remit of ArbCom. Currently, there is no Wikipedia-wide guideline for the naming of the Senkaku Islands. There was an RfC (post-Arbitration), which found overwhelmingly that Senkaku Islands (and its closely related articles like Senkaku Islands dispute) should remain as currently named. But that RfC does not govern the usage in-text on other pages. Should we have a guideline like the one governing how we use Sea of Japan throughout Wikipedia? Sure. But that has to be a community based process, probably covered at WT:Naming conventions (geographic names), with notifications to appropriate Wikiprojects. But ArbCom does not have the authority to unilaterally make guidelines. I suppose ArbCom could "order" an RfC, but I don't think that's necessary in this case. If Oda Mari wants to have a naming convention, then we should do so. However, Lvhis's suggestion that we first re-hash the name of the main article has merit; if those who think the name should be changed want to pursue that, I think it's easier to handle that one first. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I am not sure exactly what the Committee is being asked to do here. If it is to decide what is the correct name for these islands, as several commenters have noted, that is not something that we would handle. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with EdJohnson above, I see nothing here that would not be better handled at AE as the proper venue. Courcelles 16:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Per above, I'm not seeing there's anything for us to do here either (though I suppose renaming them by fiat to "Newyorkbrad Islands" might be fun).  Roger Davies  talk 05:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Senkaku islands (February 2022)

 * Original discussion

Enacted - GeneralNotability (talk) 22:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Senkaku islands Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Support
 * 1) No sanctions since 2013 and no other signs of recent disruption. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) I would also note that the only user ever subject to these sanctions got indef blocked 8 years ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Izno (talk) 10:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Primefac (talk) 11:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) BDD (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 9)  CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Discussion by arbitrators
 * I would support if 's suggestion "the Committee will consider a request to reinstate the DS by motion following an ARCA request" were incorporated. The topic's volatility is more contingent on PRC/ROC/JPN diplomacy or the need of any one of those 3 nations for some distraction from domestic politics than our DS policy. Keeping a speedier reaction in our toolbox, quicker than working through a new case, may be prudent. Cabayi (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate the discussion down the way about the tension in philosophy, if this needs an actual response I would think one of the community mechanisms (RFPP, EWN, even ANI) more efficient to sorting out any particular issue that should pop up rather than remembering that there are DS that haven't been used in close to a decade, given how small the topic area under DS is and how flashpoint it is rather than an area with a steady state need for removal of bad actors and extraordinary page protection.... Izno (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Senkaku islands Community discussion

 * In their respective countries, island ownership disputes end up being a flashpoint for nationalism and people get very passionate about it. I've seen this firsthand in real life. Dokdo is another example. – Novem Linguae (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It might be worth adding a note that should this flare up again that the Committee will consider a request to reinstate the DS by motion following an ARCA request. Thryduulf (talk) 20:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As a general, and purely semantic, comment applicable to all these motions, I would suggest using the word "terminated" rather than "rescinded." I believe "terminated" makes it clear that the sanctions were valid from the time they were imposed through the present, but now are coming to an end because they are no longer needed. The word "rescinded" could potentially be misread as meaning the Committee has decided the sanctions never should have been imposed to begin with, which is clearly not the intention. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think most people are familiar with the concept of laws or rules being rescinded once they are no longer needed, particularly during this period of health-related rules. However I'm not strongly opinionated about using rescinded versus terminated. isaacl (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm of the mind that DS create more problems than they resolve - depending on one's perspective, of course. I sincerely believe DS/AE is a failed process, and adds nothing over what a trusted administrator can already do with few exceptions. DS/AE opens the door to WP:POV creep and all but eliminates admin accountability. Forgive my boldness for taking what some may consider an unfavorable position by lump summing our woes into one big snowball rolling downhill. I consider open discussion to be the highway to resolution, whereas silencing editors and working against open discussion under the guise of DS/AE (even when 1RR/consensus is required) is a bumpy backroad that gives first-mover advantage and opens the door to WP:POV creep regardless of the topic. Please consider my response to be project wide and relative to ALL topics brought here by ArbCom. Ironically, DS consensus required can result in an editor unfairly being sanctioned for "bludgeoning" when that may not have been the case at all. We even have an essay about CIVIL POV PUSHING that is often misrepresented as a violation of WP:TE and considered disruption - all for the purpose of ridding the topic area of opposing views, especially when the responses are meaningful enough to persuade outcomes. I've also seen no smoking gun cases for disruption result in t-bans per WP:POV railroad. Do we simply ignore the injustices, or convince ourselves that the decision to site ban/t-ban/block an editor per DS/AE was fair and reasonable even in cases when it wasn't? I'm not saying all actions have been unwarranted, but the few that weren't are reason enough to reconsider. A DS/AE action is nearly impossible to reverse, so how does that actually benefit the project when an injustice is involved? I can't help but be reminded of The Limits of Volunteerism and the Gatekeepers of Team Encarta and the essay, WP:IDGAF - it's all quite relative when considering where DS/AE is taking us. I was reluctant to add this url, but based on my prior experiences as a corporate executive overseeing "damage control" I thought it best to share it. I imagine many have already seen it circulating on social media. The only reason I watched it was because of my dedication to this project. Every little chip that comprises the foundation of WP is worth examining.  Atsme 💬 📧 04:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * At present, administrators don't have liberty in general to impose editing restrictions (such as on a page, a topic area, or an individual editor). I'm not sure, though, if you feel that editing restrictions are unnecessary on English Wikipedia, as they are a restriction on open discussion? isaacl (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Issacl, see this motion. DS/AE inadvertently restricts the kind of open discussion/debate needed to reach consensus (and ultimately NPOV) but I'm of the mind, and arguably so, that the majority of our problems may be caused by aggressive (not so much bold) editors and their AE admin allies who share the same POV. DS/AE makes bold admins even bolder, so those whose nature it is to control the narrative have the advantage in DS restricted topic areas. I do know for a fact that when an admin ambush attacks an editor, that action is rarely, if ever, questioned while under the umbrella of AE, and much harder if not impossible to overturn. Perhaps rotation of admins in controversial topic areas would help resolve some of the issues, or at least offer some of us peace of mind. PAs should never be allowed but at the same time, AE isn't the only remedy. Any admin can nip disruption in the bud with a simple warning and hatting of the offensive comment(s), or in a worse case scenario, impose a short article ban against the offending editor. I'm of the mind that DS/AE gives rise to WP:POV creep which amplifies the problems. It's odd that DS result from a committee decision because no other DR process was able to provide a remedy, yet DS/AE allows for sole discretion enforcement by ambush attack which unfairly places editors at a disadvantage with a slim chance of presenting a proper defense against an action that cannot be easily overturned, and where admins have a clear advantage. It should be repealed, and sole discretion limited to disruptive trolling and other unambiguous disruption that harms the project. Long term productive editors should not be subjected to such draconian measures, especially those arising from DS/AE. This AfD discussion is an excellent example to model after for consensus building. The close was well thought out by four highly respected admins who included the following in their closing statement: We therefore strongly recommend that the DRN process be resumed and pick up the attempts at source analysis carried out in this discussion, which show promise in breaking the deadlock. If nothing else, the failure of more than 200 editors to reach any actionable consensus in this discussion shows that there is an urgent need to better define and refine the core elements of this dispute into a more manageable set of questions, if they are to be put to the wider editing community. A few editors who weren't getting the results they wanted insisted on closing the discussion early, and an admin responded with this comment. I don't think any veteran editor was blocked or t-banned, much less warned for bludgeoning, TE, or over-zealousness in their approach. I consider it progress.  Atsme 💬 📧 19:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I was reflecting solely on your comment that authorizing administrators to impose sanctions at their discretion doesn't add anything over what an administrator can already do. If I understand your response, I believe you are saying that, in your view, this additional discretion is unnnecessary and can hamper discussion. I appreciate the time spent in your comments. isaacl (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Other naming and island-control disputes are more contentious than this and survive without discretionary sanctions, two examples being the Spratly Islands and Imia/Kardak. There is also the Liancourt Rocks dispute; I am not sure what the state of sanctions is on that topic but there were DS in the past. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 16:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)