Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Proposed decision

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

Issues relating to administrators
Hmm... the matter with the Magog the Ogre has not been raised by the arbitrators. I felt there are compelling evidence about his recent conduct and the way he slander other parties in this ArbCom case. Since the ArbCom does not even intend to "advise" or "remind" him of his actions, I suppose the take home message is that he did nothing wrong even after all the personal attacks he threw and the permanent ban proposals he made?

Since he has taken up the role of the supervising administrators, it's troubling that his misconduct is overlooked. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In analyzing the evidence provided on the evidence page, I found the allegations against Magog the Ogre and Qwyrxian pretty unconvincing. As far as I can see, the main argument against Magog is that he once unfairly blocked one party and not another, which if correct, would indeed be misuse of the tools, but a single misuse doesn't justify desysopping, perhaps not even a mention. Most of the other evidence seems to come down to "he wasn't nice to me/someone on my side" or "he disagreed with my content position". Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether or not desysop is an appropriate measure is another question, but his general attitude towards his critics is something I consider to be problematic. An example would be this where he'd use all sorts of libels and personal attacks on others even though his critics were obviously justified in their scrutiny of his decisions. He then proceeded to propose a block on a rule-abiding party whose only fault appeared to be having a role in criticizing his decisions . I thought this is pretty ironic, since this ArbCom case is mostly about incivility and admins are generally expected to adhere to higher standards of user conduct. Or maybe I am simply suffering from insanity and that all that I thought to be inappropriate is, in fact, perfectly appropriate. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm completely nonplussed about the concerns over the admins who tried to help, and they were attacked repeatedly by each sides whenever a decision didnt go their way. When you wear out multiple admins who started as neutral admins, the problem isn't the admins. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How was he even attacked? The whole ordeal with him was civil until he decided to accuse other people of trolling. These two threads constitute the bulk of the recent interactions with him outside of ArbCom . --Bobthefish2 (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The discussions that followed Magog not blocking Tenmei we're full of thinly veiled jabs which kept escalating until, and including during, this arbcom case. I personally don't like the use of the word "troll" on Wikipedia, however I looked at when it was used and I can appreciate why they believed they were being trolled; you come across as deliberately trying to provoke, which is incivil.  The blocks were not a significant contributor to the problems with these articles. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, to be very blunt, we expect parties to "slander" each other on the ArbCom pages. Bad behaviour on arbitration pages is par for the course, and we ignore the vast majority of it.  The arbitration case is a space to openly explain the problems prior to arbitration, and an arbitration decision should refer to actions made prior to the arbitration case being accepted. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Original Research issue
In the respectful Arbitrators "Proposed final decision/Proposed principles/Purpose of Wikipedia", it is clearly stated "Use of the site for other purposes, such as ..., ..., publishing or promoting original research, and ..., is prohibited." But I am surprised that user Qwyrxian's (and user Oda Mari's) using or promoting original research resulting in preventing consensus in edit of the related page was not mentioned at all. Why? --Lvhis (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, the policies for talk page are not as strict in regards to original research and POV, as consensus comes from people providing their opinions on the talk page. WP:OR is violated when a person adds original research into content pages, however a person can be sanctioned for belligerently pushing their own opinion in talk discussions when it disrupts the consensus process. (sometimes called stonewalling).  In this dispute, there were only a few parties involved in the process, and most of them prevented consensus using different methods.  ArbCom isnt going to decide who was right and wrong on the content.  The proposed decision will remove the most problematic contributions from the topic, and the proposed discretionary sanctions will mean this topic will be subject to the organised complaint management system of Arbitration enforcement, where uninvolved admins review problems carefully.  It is our hope that with these remedies, and better administrative oversight, the level of discourse on the talk page will improve. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think, for what it's worth, that a couple of additional editors, who had engaged in some edit-warring and page-move warring, probably should have been topic banned. The discretionary sanctions, however, should hopefully deal with it if any of them repeat the behavior.  I hope that the Senkaku Islands article can be unlocked soon. Cla68 (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, this chart appears to do a fairly good job at identifying the individuals who have caused the most trouble. Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That chart merely identifies who praised/blamed who during Arbitration itself; it provides no explanation for who actually caused problems with the articles.  Qwyrxian (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point I agree with Qwyrxian. The term "praised/blamed" in that chart for brief illustration sometimes cannot precisely describe the actual meaning of some parties opinions. E.g. "agreed on certain party's some comments" does have some difference from "praised certain party". --Lvhis (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you John Vandenberg for your reply and explanation, though what I hoped was more than this. I thought user's motivation should have not dug out, or such digging had at least not been encouraged. Now it seems I was not correct. If digging out user's motivation is allowed in an Arbitration process, I would have also dug out some user's motivation for impeding consensus. --Lvhis (talk) 05:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether it is too late or not, now may I input some of my thought on user Qwyrxian's motivation of what I accused him in my evidence: Is he a paid (editor) for the topic in question (that is now under Arbitration process) that made him using all means including belligerently pushing his own opinion, a pure original research, in talk discussions impeding the consensus on an RSs supported NPOV content? He was making a BRD as BREA (as said by arbitrator SirFozzie in this proposed decision page under header "Edit wars are harmful"). Qwyrxian is a very experienced and senior wikipedian who should know not using "stonewalling" including his own original research to impede consensus, but he was still using it. Please see his comments left in Jmbo Wales' talk page "Still banning paid editors?". His comments (and edit summaries) on 13:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC), 14:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC), and on 00:43, 31 August (UTC) there implied he may support not banning paid editors. In his talk page, when talking he might shoot himself in his foot in this RfAr case, or another metaphor boomerangs, he expressed he would try to lobby all arbitrators: "my fear of boomerangs isn't going to stop me from lobbing a whole bunch of sticks." With what could he do such lobbying? If he is really getting paid and that is working, the Wikipedia at least at the paid topics or sections will become some payer's encyclopedia, but no longer be The Free Encyclopedia. --Lvhis (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I will simply state three things: 1) I am not a paid editor, nor have I ever been one in the past, nor do I have any particular intent to become one in the future. 2) That does not change the fact that I fully support paid editors being able to freely edit Wikipedia so long as they declare their COI, despite the fact that Jimbo Wales disagrees. This is exactly like how a heterosexual can support gay rights; just because I support the right of others to get paid for editing Wikipedia does not mean that I myself am a paid editor. 3) I do not believe that I have ever in any circumstance used original research in articles; if I did, it was unintentional.  However, after arbitration is finished, if in the future you believe I am using original research, I will be more than willing to discuss the issue at the original research noticeboard.   Qwyrxian (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding accused of original research by someone, if I were you, the simplest, the most straightforward, the most efficient, and the clearest way to clarify this for myself would be to immediately (now not meaning right now) provide him/them the most related Reliable Source(s) supporting my point/statement/argument, like what I did when I was challenged by your follower Oda Mari . I won't do be like what Bob was misled by you. He naively and inappropriately went to WP:NORN at a wrong time. I prefer that you did an OR really unintentionally and you will correct such mistake from now on. As for the paid editor issue, I fully agree with Jimbo Walse. I understand that is his ideal for this unique Free Encyclopedia. "No lunch for free", particularly when payer to pay for some specific topic(s), POV intent and stubbornness as for advocacy will be automatically and inevitably much stronger. Even if only from the time consuming point, a paid editor will take great advantage over a real volunteer who can only spend his limited spare/amateur time to contribute for this unique encyclopedia. You have your stance and your statements here. I have my questions with discoveries here. Your behaviors are keeping going. Readers and Wikipedians will tell or make their judgments from all of these. For the time being I will drop off this issue. The metaphor you gave is not proper, and it touches some sensitive topic which I will not touch. --Lvhis (talk) 23:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Qwyrxian, from your recent input there you demonstrated you did OR absolutely in an intentional way and you will keep insisting on that, which has cancelled my "preferring" as stated above. The original research issue about you is not a complicated one. If you are really innocent and want to clarify this, besides what I pointed 4 "the most" above, here I add one more: the easiest way for you to go: You just need simply to present the most directly related Reliable Source(s) supporting your assertion that was accused of Original Research. We do not need to go WP:NORN. This Arbitration case has not yet been closed. You can clarify this for yourself immediately right now before all of the Arbitrators of ArbCom here. Your intentional OR will hurt the future collaborative editing on this disputed topic, as your such OR was and will be belligerently disruptive for discussions and edits. If this problem cannot be solved properly now, I am afraid that the outcome of this Arbitration, after great efforts by so many Arbitrators, may still not be that optimistic. --Lvhis (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I perceive no evidence of "original research" by Qwyrxian. I also see absolutely no basis for bringing the interesting but irrelevant issue of paid editing into this discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "'Senkaku Islands' is the real English name for the islands" and "No" for question "Is the 'Senkaku Islands' the Japanese name for these Islands?". If this is no evidence of original research, we can write on WP article "The real English name for the islands is the Diaoyu Islands". While, I respect what you commented based on what you perceived. Thanks. --Lvhis (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If we apply the 3.1.9 Principle then "Diaoyu/Diaoyutai Islands" is also the English name for the islands. STSC (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

"Original research" has a specific, somewhat technical meaning as the term is used in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It does not mean merely a statement that another editor disagrees with, nor a statement that (allegedly) is inaccurately sourced. Qwyrxian may or may not be right about what is the best name to use for the islands (though his position does seem to have a certain amount of support for it), but again, I don't see evidence of a WP:OR violation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * One thing needing to be clarified is that discussion/dispute was not for naming/title issue. It was about an edit of the leading section of that page Senkaku Islands dispute. Qwyrxian opposed a version based on his assertion "'Senkaku Islands' is the real English name for the islands" to particularly opposed a sentence in that version "..., known as the Senkaku Islands (尖閣諸島) in Japanese, ..." which is supported by several RSs (we can easily find more RSs for it). The description for his such behavior can be found in Disruptive editing and its [Refusal to "get the point"] "by sticking to an unsupportable allegation or viewpoint", or "promoting original research" as stated in "Proposed principles 3.1.1", if I have construed correctly. --Lvhis (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Remedy 8 - Sovereign nations
As mentioned, the definition of "sovereign nations" can be ambiguous - especially where concerning states like Taiwan. I would suggest that "state (whether de facto or de jure)" be used instead. This has the advantage of clearly including states like Taiwan - it draws the line broadly, but is also pretty clear as to what is included and what isn't while avoiding phrasings like "UN recognized states + Taiwan," which would be problematic. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for recommending how we should word this. If arbitrators do wish to include disputes only involving Taiwan and another state, I'll propose your wording.
 * I am partial to excluding disputes only involving Taiwan and another state. I think the Taiwan relations are special, and would warrant a new arbitration case to address them.  In 8A I have used "UN recognised"; is there a better way to define this? John Vandenberg (chat) 19:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "UN member states" would exclude one generally-accepted "sovereign nation" in the Holy See, but that probably isn't going to be an issue with regard to this kind of dispute. Alternatively, "UN member and observer states" would include the Holy See, the Cook Islands, and Niue, but would exclude Taiwan and states in similar situations, as well as excluding Palestine and states/organizations in similar situations. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 08:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Remedy 3.3.7 - STSC
See, , , and User talk:Oda Mari. It is not easy to talk with a user like him, as, not only incivil, but he does not understand what WP is. Or he seems to be hostile to me. I don't think just a warning is good enough. Oda Mari (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

3.3.4.1 Tenmei banned for one year
There're 6 support votes. What's the vote of Newyorkbrad on this proposal? Oppose or abstain? STSC (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose all the others are abstain votes. STSC (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Under a recent motion, we decided to have a comments section in our discussion of each proposal, along with the support, oppose, and abstain section. When an arbitrator posts a comment but doesn't vote at the same time, it means that he or she wants to await responses to the comment before voting. Thus, in this instance, I haven't voted on this proposal yet, but I expect to do so tonight or tomorrow.
 * Several of the arbitrators haven't cast their votes on the remedies yet, even though they've voted on the principles and findings. It's best not to read any particular meaning into that, other than that they are still considering the proposals and the evidence. I can attest from my experience that the remedies are often the hardest aspect of the case to decide, because they have such a direct effect on specific editors. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

3.2.9 STSC
It is very unfair that some of my comments which were completely deleted by myself were used as part of the evidence, namely diff-12 and diff-13. I had withdrawn these comments and it should be the end of the matter. Further more, as one of the arbitrators John Vandenberg said, "The arbitration case is a space to openly explain the problems prior to arbitration, and an arbitration decision should refer to actions made prior to the arbitration case being accepted." STSC (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "open" does not mean without any restraint at all. Would you write those things if you signed your edit with your real name?   Would you write those things if your father or grandmother was reading your edits? John Vandenberg (chat) 19:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you were referring to diff-12 and diff-13, these comments were already deleted by myself. Things had been said in the heat of the moment during the arbitration and I had withdrawn them. I feel that there's some unfairness in using it in the deliberation. STSC (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that if we were talking about only a couple of diffs, the whole topic wouldn't be part of the proposed decision. It's the repetition of the type of comments we are talking about that was the problem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I fully understand the arbitrators' criticism on my part and I'm not trying to deny it. My point is the comments (diff-12) were withdrawn completely on my own accord 6 minutes later as shown in diff-13. I'm disappointed that the drafting arbitrators still decided to present these deleted comments in the deliberation, and without pointing out that the comments have been deleted by the editor. STSC (talk) 02:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the fact you removed this comment 6 minutes after you make it is a point in your favor (and certainly the edit removing the comment isn't being considered an additional incident of a problem). That being said, I wasn't the main drafter in this case, but I think it's fair to say this finding would have been pretty much the same even if the diffs we're talking about here hadn't happened. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not my intention to overturn the outcome of the finding. I just want to ensure the procedure was conducted in a fair and correct manner to all parties concerned. STSC (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions for naming of geographical regions
Apart from the disputed islands such as Spratly Islands, I would like to see the discretionary sanctions also covering the non-disputed locations like "South China Sea". The name "South China Sea" has been frequently the subject of vandalism in various articles on Southeast Asia. STSC (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I was actually just about to suggest something similar. South China Sea is, per our article, a part of the Pacific Ocean, as is the Sea of Japan, but I can see how it might be confusing not to include them explicitly.  For example, a quick look at the map PhilKnight linked to in Borders of the oceans, it looks like only the "main" Pacific is included.  So, perhaps it might be helpful to say "any set of pages relating to a territorial dispute of islands in the west Pacific, including all of its marginal seas (see list at Marginal sea)"; you may even want to list some of the more likely marginal seas explicitly.  Also, I think that one thing you want to be absolutely sure of is if to decide whether or not you are including Taiwan, Republic of Taiwan, Republic of China – United States relations, etc. in this locus of sanctionable disputes.  Personally, I have no opinion either way, but I think that an admin should be able to instantly and unambiguously tell whether or not PRC/ROC issues fall under this grouping and can be placed under discretionary sanctions if needed.  Qwyrxian (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Qwyrxian, my reading of the map on the Borders of the oceans page is that it's intended to show the differences between the CIA definition in blue, and the International Hydrographic Organization definition, which has the black outline. In this context, it would appear that according to the CIA factbook definition, the marginal seas of the Pacific Ocean are included. PhilKnight (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, reading comprehension FTW. You're right. Whatever definition you (all) put together, all that matters to me is that it's clear for admins seeking to impose it.  It would end up defeating the purpose if every time an admin wanted to declare Island X to be under these sanctions, they had to come back to AE just to establish that its covered.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Not ready to devolve discretionary sanctions to admins
To the arbs who aren't "ready" to devolve discretionary sanctions to administrators: Timetable, please. When are we going to be ready? If the answer is "never" or "an indefinite time period in the future", that is, bluntly, not good enough. I'm sick to death of us having to wait through month-long cases whenever this sort of thing flares up when it's mind-numbingly obvious that they're needed, as in this case. If you're not going to devolve it to admins, then come up with a faster track for making them directly from AC (for example, a motion voted on at the same time as the case acceptance, instead of at the proposed decision a month later). Or alternatively, if the issue is that you're not willing to devolve to individual administrators, require a consensus of three, five, whatever number you're comfortable with. Leaving things as they are would mean we still have to wait through these interminable cases for a simple set of discretionary sanctions, and that's a disservice to our community. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Part of me is ready to type "that sounds like a policy change, that should come from the community, not from us." The Committee will certainly be accused of policy-making if we devolve the authority to impose discretionary sanctions on any article in the entire encyclopedia on a small group of administrators, for example.
 * But then again, I can also think that in some cases, we could adopt a motion imposing discretionary sanctions when we take a case and it seems likely that we will be imposing them at the end of the case anyway. Something like:
 * ''Temporary injunction: Articles relating to [topic] are subject to standard discretionary sanctions until this case is resolved. Should the final decision in this case place [topic] under discretionary sanctions, the sanctions imposed under this remedy shall be treated as if they were imposed as part of the discretionary sanctions authorized by the final decision. Should the final decision not place [topic] under discretionary sanctions, this temporary injunction shall terminate automatically, but any sanctions already imposed will remain in effect for a period not exceeding 6 months from the final decision, unless otherwise directed in the final decision. Nothing in this temporary injunction shall be treated as constituting a final judgment on any aspect of the case."
 * And if we decided to authorize discretionary sanctions in lieu of the case, something like:
 * ''The request for arbitration is declined at this time. However, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for [article or topic]. Should this measure fail to resolve the issues raised in the request for arbitration, a new request may be filed after XX days."
 * These are rough ideas ... comments welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Both seem like good ideas to me. Allowing the discretionary sanctions to be applied more quickly in cases like these is definitely a step in the right direction. I consistently find it frustrating how long arbitration cases last, but I always try to assume the best, i.e., that the committee is really doing its best to keep things moving. Still, if it has to be this slow, ideas like the ones proposed by NYB could speed up the discretionary sanctions element of it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm perhaps one of the few arbitrators who thought that the community-based discretionary sanctions applied to the Climate Change area was actually a very good concept. The weakness with that particular example was the expanse of the topic area, because it crossed so many major flashpoints (BLP, WP:FRINGE, science vs. politics, and many different Arbcom cases); the guiding principle behind it was, I think, quite sound. I could see something like that working very well with discrete topic areas such as Liancourt Rocks or Senkaku Islands or similar topics where there is really only one focal point. However, I don't think the decision to apply such community-based discretionary sanctions should come from Arbcom in the absence of expressed interest from the community. I would also be concerned that leaving the decision to a single administrator as an Arbcom enforcement action, particularly given the level of effort required to overturn a poor decision, is not an optimal situation. Not only that, but the administrator who takes on such a role may well find him/herself "stuck" with that dispute and without any backup to maintain vigilance.  Risker (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I know you all are busy, but why don't the arbitrators take turns participating on the ArbCom Enforcement page? If not enough "regular" admins are participating there, then someone needs to step in and help out.  The arbitrators are, presumably, already knowledgeable on much of the background surrounding the topics under discretionary sanctions. Cla68 (talk) 05:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is suggesting that "regular" admins are unable to manage the workload at AE; in fact, I think they're doing quite well. There's a lot of ambivalence in the community and likely Arbcom itself about the appropriateness of arbs voting on the decision, then enforcing the decision and potentially clarifying or amending the same decision, and I can respect that. I figure I already put in about 20 hours a week in dispute resolution and problem-solving as it is, so while I will often read WP:AE, I don't usually feel an urge to step in and take over any of the requests. Risker (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * While obviously any decision about how to handle this is up to the Committee, I just want to say that as both a person involved in this dispute, and as an admin asked to look into other unrelated disputes and handle them, I believe that granting some efficient way to set up sanctions without requiring a full ArbCom case would be extremely helpful. Of course, right now, the community has the option to do that already.  Unfortunately, in this case we tried that--if you look to Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive712, specifically the subsection Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive712, and got no where. The problem is that without seeing a mass of evidence at once like ArbCom can, or with Climate Changes seeing the issue raised at ANI, 3RRNB, AN, etc. every few days/weeks, it's very hard for the community to see how pressing a problem ongoing disruption is.  Climate Change can catch the community's eye and general understanding simply because it is so broad, but a topic like Senkaku Islands, which covers 3 main articles and just a handful more beyond that (like Japan-Korea disputes), that involves less than a dozen editors, simply won't appear like a big enough problem for the community to see how DR is no longer working.  On the other hand, I certainly agree that investing individual admins with the power to declare sanctions is giving away a major ability, perhaps one that the community is unwilling to cede.  If I may, allow me to offer a few alternatives:
 * Allow individual admins the right to declare the sanctions in this topic area, but require a review at AN afterward where the default/no consensus option is to accept the consensus (i.e., the community needs to actively argue that the sanctions are unnecessary, otherwise the admins declaration stands)
 * Allow some specific number of admins to collectively declare the sanctions (maybe, 3?), and then have the issue reviewable afterward by AN
 * Allow MEDCOM members the ability to "breach neutrality" enough to, if mediation is not proving effective, ask for sanctions at AN. MEDCOM would not need to actually discuss the mediation, only to give a clear statement that the mediation has failed and that sanctions are a necessary step to preserve article stability.
 * Allow an arbcom subcommittee the ability to declare sanctions without requiring the whole committee to rule on the matter. The primary problem with this is that it is unlikely that the wider community will be aware that they can ask for such sanctions via a streamlined process; I'm not sure how we'd publicize that. This is akin to NewYorkBrad's option allowing the Committee to declare sanctions without actually hearing a case.
 * Create some sort of noticeboard that could handle this issue. This sounds terrible to me, because we certainly don't need more noticeboards, but I thought I should offer it as an option.
 * Just put all the entire topic under discretionary sanctions, now. I doubt that this would go over well with the community, though, since it would likely be seen as ArbCom overstepping its bounds and imposing sanctions in places where there is currently no evidence of bad behavior (that is, they may see this and the Liancourt instance as one of bad behavior on individual's part, while failing to recongize the systemic aspect of the dispute)
 * Create a site-wide referendum (a la the Pending Changes or unsourced BLP problems) to see if there is support now for broad-based sanctions, or perhaps some certain subsection of them.
 * I'm sure there must be more options. I'm just hoping that there is some way that we can provide the community and admins tools to avoid having to spend a year or more with bad behavior, bad editing, etc., winding through all of the DR channels, when sanctions could help weed out the worst apples long before they have a chance to be overly disruptive.  Qwyrxian (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I very much agree with Qwyrxian's points about the difficulty of getting the community to back sanctions in these areas. To be more specific about it: I think it is very hard to get the community to understand the need for them in controversial matters that are not widely disputed in the Anglophone world. That's why we got community sanctions on climate change: this is a widely disputed matter in English-speaking countries. So is abortion, so we got a community-based 1RR on that. And a telling sign is that the one geopolitical dispute I'm aware of that ever got community sanctions is the "British Isles" one; a dispute that concerns Anglophone nations. Stuff like this, Eastern European stuff and the like tends to simply fly under community radar: not enough people know about it, so they can't see the need, and if we try to present information, we get tl;dr'd. So we're kind of hosed as it comes to community-based discretionary sanctions. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There are some very good points and potentially workable ideas in this section. I'll think about it for a couple of hours and see if I can come up with something that we might be able to put forward in this decision. However, I do like the idea of applying discretionary sanctions by motion in lieu of a case or as a temporary measure to see if that will help to avoid a full case.  I'd rather try a process that brings in the observations of several impartial reviewers but doesn't consume the energies of a full case; however, Heimstern and Qwyrxian have a point about the indifference of the community in many of these situations, so perhaps that would not be the best devolution.  Risker (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As a party (and in addition to my Clerk duties elsewhere), I hold the view that "Any dispute related to an ongoing real world dispute (or even controversy) will have these kinds of editorial conflict popping up" from time to time - it is to be expected. Regarding NYB's point: Didn't ArbCom used to put in temporary injunctions while looking at certain things? I don't think temporary injunctions have been used in a long while... - Penwhale &#124; dance in the air and follow his steps 08:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Concerns
As the RFC/U was heavily canvassed, I think the rush to ban entirely an editor who could become a productive contributor is Draconian - and I generally oppose Draconian solution. I would humbly suggest the one year topic ban on Senkaku is possibly reasonable, and would appear to address the actual concerns raised in this action. Please note that I have not been involved in any of this other than to address the clear CANVASS violations at the RFC/U. (I could not even point out Senkaku on a map, I fear)  Newyorkbrad is sound on his reasoning. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been torn for several days on whether to write something here...because I, like Collect and Beeblebrox (see xyr new additions to the evidence page), have some misgivings about a full site ban for Tennmei. Tenmei can be extraordinarily disruptive, especially regarding issues with underlying real-world disputes. I definitely agree with John Vandeburg, who wrote that "I think this particular dispute [Senkaku Islands] wont benefit from Tenmei participating, ever."  But Tenmei also does some very excellent work, finding sources no one else does, and significantly expanding our articles on historical Asian subjects.  But Tenmei has shown, by the fact that this is a problem addressed by the Committee several years ago that was never improved, that xe has some fundamental communication problems in disputes.  So, while simply topic banning him makes my life easier, I don't want to just push him off onto some other group of editors in a different dispute. Are there some more complex solutions we could try?  For instance, could we put Tenmei under discretionary sanctions? In other words, limit him to either 1RR or 0RR, and further allow any uninvolved editor to block if his talk page editing becomes tendentious?  That is, let him keep contributing to the encyclopedia in uncontroversial ways, while not allowing him to generate pain for editors on even slightly contentious subjects?  Finally, one small note: I strongly reject the idea of Tenmei editing Simple Wikipedia--his style is hard enough for highly skilled native speakers to follow, much less Simple English speakers.  Qwyrxian (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree about "simple English", having written an article there myself. I recall a person writing "forgive this long letter, for I did not have time to write a shorter one."  Getting the facts into simple words, which are not easily misunderstood, is not all that "simple." Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Collect, I appreciate that the RFC/U was canvassed, however there were opinions from uninvolved people and they are the main ones I considered. More importantly, in the previous RFAR Tenmei was found to be one of the primary causes of the dispute resolution breakdown, and they have repeated the same behaviour.  We went to extraordinary lengths last time to allow Tenmei to continue editing. Tenmei was effectively banned for quite a while as we couldnt find a mentor, and neither could Tenmei.  Eventually mentors were found, but the problems have occurred again.  The arbitrators appreciate that Tenmei means well, and does well when they are not involved in tense discussions.  Should Tenmei be banned again at the close of this case, we would again look seriously at any amendment which will allow Tenmei to edit in only productive ways. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Would not a simple topic ban on Senkaku, and a 1RR restriction on areas not directly connected with the Senkaku ado be sufficient then?  I would suggest that it is a better solution thatn that posited by the Queen of Hearts, to be sure. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking only for myself (but I think at least some of the Committee agrees with me), the previous situation with Tenmei was one of the more effort-intensive remedies we've ever passed (six mentors, etcetera). Despite this, problems, some of them significant, have re-occurred. The question is: The mentoring situation broke down. Would the effort and time spent trying to keep Tenmei on the straight and narrow be worth his disruption? (I'm not saying that he intentionally tries to be disruptive, but he is). It's weighing the good (his edits on some areas outside of the various areas he's been in trouble with in the past) versus the bad (the disruption and the arbitration cases, etcetera). To me, the scale unfortunately is a bit unbalanced, and that is reflected in the way I voted. SirFozzie (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Tenmei may be disruptive, but as far as I know, he is not incivil. His philosophical lengthy posts on the talk pages could be easily skipped, they made the point of the issue on respective threads blurred and complicated though. They make editors fed up, but not hurt. However, incivility hurts. Bobthefish2 didn't change after WQA in Feburuary. Both Bobthefish2 and STSC are still incivil at this arbitration case and STSC's recent inappropriate posts can be found at here and here . I think a site ban for Tenmei is too harsh and a warning for STSC is too lenient. Are there other ways to stop Tenmei's disruptiveness? Is it impossible to apply more detailed bans to him? For instance, no use of graphs, limit one post on talk pages to a maximum of 200 or 250 words, no successive talk page posts before other users' post except fix or tweak, etc. Talking about AGF, I find better faith in Tenmei than in Bobthefish2 and STSC. Oda Mari (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * In my experience with Tenmei (which is now three years old) he or she was were highly uncivil and their talk page posts were almost impossible to understand - see Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer/Archive 1 (not to mention the related ANI posts). While I acknowledge that Tenmei has made many useful contributions, he or she also frequently gets caught up in disputes over nationalistic-type issues related to Japan and makes the situation much worse and this is a consistent pattern of behaviour. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I rather think that a 3 year old experience is not something which should be held as an eternal issue ... rather the issue is whether Wikipedia is better served by an absolute ban for an extended period, or by specific bright-line restrictions allowing an editor to conribute productively at a time when Wikipedia has seen a significant decrease in active editors. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that a three year old experience shouldn't justify a block. The point I was trying to make is that Tenmei has continued the same conduct since then despite several interventions and mentoring, so the probability of editing restrictions and the like being effective doesn't seem very high. Tenmei's continued participation also needs to be weighed against the likelihood that he or she will deter other editors through escalating disputes (including before a bright line is reached). Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nick. Wikipedia cannot afford to continue the waste of its resources just to accommodate an individual who likes to show off his/her art of obscured writing (in whatever languages). STSC (talk) 05:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been notified to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been notified to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That was a pretty canvassy notification, in that it was not neutral and targeted a specific project. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree that CANVASS applies and suggest you substantially reword that notification to be scrupulously neutral. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In principle Collect is correct, but given that the ultimate audience on these pages is the arbitrators and we are aware of the situation, I wouldn't worry overmuch about this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Discouragement
Stepping back, I adopt Nihonjoe's assessment as axiomatic:
 * Tenmei is obviously willing to work with us and we're willing to work with him on this issue. Tenmei has complied with every little nit-picky thing you've come up with, and yet you still keep throwing out more that he must do. There's a limit to how many hoops you should make someone jump through when they are going above and beyond to show they are willing to improve. -- 日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:15, 7 April 2010

After jumping through so many hoops, what else was I expected to do? Stepping back, I also adopt DGG's words as if they were my own:
 * "I joined Wikipedia do improve its quality. i recognized it would be a slow process. It does not surprise me that it is not faster, and I thus have no reason to get angry because I had misjudged he difficulty ... We have serious content problems, but they to a considerable extent are inseparable from the inherent problems of any project like ours that operates without editorial control: the need for truly competent referencing, for understandable writing, for balance in coverage between and among articles, for avoiding promotionalism of people's individual viewpoints, and, more especially, the need to update every article in Wikipedia in a regular and reliable manner .... What I think is truly harmful is anything that discourages .... -- DGG 04:42, 9 March 2010

The discouragement of this case is plain enough, but not much else. --Tenmei (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Clarification regarding the island of Taiwan
Taiwan is an island in East Asia and it is disputed as China claims it. Do we want to include the whole of Taiwan with the other island groups? Maybe we do. But it should be clarified. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the legal status of the Republic of China on Taiwan is what we have in mind in the remedy, even though it may technically fall within its language. (Of course, this is not to say that editors are free to misbehave in editing Taiwan or any other articles, just that it is not covered by this particular remedy.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This remedy is only for situations where there are protracted editorial disputes involving "proper names to be used to refer to the disputed region." That already limits its application significantly.  I cant foresee a dispute over the name of the island Taiwan that isnt sparked by intense political or military action.  I am sure that the majority of arbitrators are not wanting a dispute over the name of Taiwan to be handled by this remedy.  We could exclude Taiwan explicitly, however I am also happy to not write in an exception for Taiwan; if there is ever a naming dispute over the island Taiwan, I am confident that editors will find these comments here. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think either a specific exclusion or inclusion should be done. The proper name of Taiwan has been a hot button topic for just about as long as I have been alive. Risker (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)