Bobthefish2

Talkback

Hello, Bobthefish2. You have new messages at Phoenix7777's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 29 March 2011 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

Formal mediation of the dispute relating to Senkaku Islands has been requested. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. For an explanation of what formal mediation is, see Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy. Please now review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then, in the "party agreement" section, indicate whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page.

Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

This message is to inform you that a request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Senkaku Islands, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. Mediation of this dispute will begin within two weeks (once a mediator has been assigned to the case), so please add the case page to your watchlist.

• For an explanation of what is involved in formal mediation, see Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy#Mediation
• For a guide to accepted cases, see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Guide#Case phase

The entirety of the above two pages (the MedCom policy and the guide to formal mediation) are also important reading for editors who are new to formal mediation. If you have any questions, please post them onto the case talk page, or contact the MedCom mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 15:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Re

Glad that you have been back. I have been badly busy now too. I am not the "main driver" and I saw reasonable suggestions from STSC and PHead128 not long before. The environment of the dispute has made me having less and less confidence on the coming mediation. Thanks for your message. --Lvhis (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I am back mostly to witness this mediation. Your lack of confidence on the process is understandable. I view it as little more than a formality that User:Qwyrxian and others intend to pursue. It's commendable that you stuck around for all this time, since these content debates are quite unproductive exercises. Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Pinnacle Islands

Yes Bob, I also like the dual name solution but Wikipedia does not seem to endorse a dual name very much. In any case, I would support the dual name argument in the mediation process. STSC (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Bob and STSC, thank both of you for your input and efforts. My thought is to go step by step: step1, the "SI" is a POV one; Step2, choose either dual one or the English "PI". Step1 is very critical. --Lvhis (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The argument

Bob, I am too busy to input my whole thought on the argument in one time. Maybe the incontinuity causes some problem. I am still working on it. Thanks.--Lvhis (talk) 04:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Bob, you have done a good job in your section "The Practice of Unscientific Research". When I was close to finish my section "the SI is not a English name but ..." and then read through your section, I feel my one sounds echoing your one with specifics, as your one was more in principle and theoretical way. Hope these two are of complement to each other. I feel this long standing dispute has been with "penny-wise and pound-foolish" tricks which we need to avoid, and in addition, a trick of "Wikilawyering". As for the poll, I mostly agree on your vote. I had my concern left in STSC's talk page . Thanks. --Lvhis (talk) 05:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought the poll's kind of useless and distractive, but I took part in it anyway since it's not such a big deal. My feeling is that we should spend more time discussing the science behind this little research project than wasting time making premature opinions on various data collection methods.

By the way, you should take a look at Phoenix7777's data in here. It's a classic case of how impressive results can be cooked up. I've made a few reassessments of his data and the significance of his results had then unsurprisingly vanished. I'd encourage you to do similar reassessments of his other data.

Finally, this is a very sensitive question -> What do you think of our mediator? While he appears to be a pretty nice guy, I am not exactly sure if he has the expertise to really fully appreciate the arguments, the data, and the (very basic) science that were presented by us. Just by looking at his profile, it appears he technically should have the relevant training in science and computation (being an expert Perl programmer and all). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"I'm in the mood for dancing"

I was in the mood to confront those edit-warlords in the absence of the mediator, particularly when I saw John Smith's appearing on the scene! STSC (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty... Just make sure you don't cross the line! But I do understand the thrill of seeing our favourite reputable British editor. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 10:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Guess what, I was in that mood again 'cos I was bored to dead by that guy! STSC (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I have had enough fun, just can't be bothered with that! STSC (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's say, it's just his obsession to write in the way he writes. STSC (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

He must be in a very bad mood! STSC (talk) 08:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's get the mediation moving

Feezo is asking for an apology. Please Bob, there's no harm in doing it privately on his email or talk page. STSC (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I felt my criticism of him, for the most part, to be well-justified. He is most certainly welcomed to tell me my critiques were undeserved because of [insert reason]. But instead, he threatened to forfeit his duties as a mediator to force a personal matter to settle in his favour. I believe this is a strong indication that we simply need a more professional mediator (this is Feezo's first time as a mediator) that:

1. Makes competent decisions and analyses
2. Doesn't start fights with other parties
3. Can take/debate criticisms without resorting to the aforementioned antics --Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, we're at the dead-end then. STSC (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Bob, so far I feel we three (you, STSC, and me) have worked there pretty good in a way more and more tacit understanding or agreement. We all may be quite happy there, at least so far. As for the conflict between you and mediator Feezo, I guess he may have an unhappy first-impression when you had some talk-exchanges with Tenmei, him, and AGT before I signed in "agree" and requested that template/tag. You deserve the AGF, and he deserves too. He may have misunderstood or has been misunderstanding you. When an audience has a misunderstanding in a AGF way, the speaker may have some responsibility too. No one can be perfect. May I still use that "penny, pound" or "芝麻，西瓜" stuff as an analogy. A sincere apology from you may be your real grievance in fact, but it may not hurt very much by thinking this is a gentleman's generous (大人大肚量). You have done very good job there and I have learned quite amount from you. If you don't agree the above (I have said too much), you can punch me. --Lvhis (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The philosophy you and STSC expressed are understandable (i.e. 大局為重 and 得過且過), but I don't think it applies to this situation very well. It's possible that my perception of the mediator is very different to your perception of him, which may explain a difference in our perspective in this. My impression of him is that of a pressurized can situated in a heated room (i.e. 定時炸彈). Even if I were to appease him this time, I have a feeling that he's going to be ticked off by something else again very soon. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That is certain expectation or an assumption yet. If that turns true, I believe STSC and I will work with you together. Now, compromising does not mean you are weaker, instead, may be even stronger. --Lvhis (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No Lvhis, that's not compromising. It's capitulation on a matter where the fault lies largely on another party. Instead, I opt to wait and see what is going to happen next. At the moment, it appears our friend Tenmei has gone after a bunch of mediators. Be patient. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Bob, if half of the exchanges you've had with Feezo had occurred anywhere else on Wikipedia, you'd likely have been hauled into WQA or worse. That can't happen here because discussions in mediation are essentially exempt from being used in disciplinary or other proceedings. Your most recent comment, accusing Feezo of trying to gain an advantage is both offensive and ridiculous: why would a mediator need an advantage? Are you implying he's not a neutral party in this discussion? If so, take it up with the committee. And all of the junk you talk about about "it's the other persons' fault for taking it that way, that's not what I meant" is disgusting. You can't excuse bad behavior by saying it's the listeners fault; that's just like people who make sexist or sexually harassing comments and then say "I was just joking!" Well, you know what? Civility isn't judged by intentions--it's just by behavior and effects. The effect of your attacking the mediator (not only you, to be fair, but in large part you) was to drive the mediator away and waste time that could have been spent on the actual problem. Is this helpful? Does this get us any closer to a solution to our problem? You've told me before that I'm too nice, that I'm too accepting of other people's bad behavior. So fine--your behavior thus far in mediation has been occasionally helpful (like in your analysis of the search results), but mostly it's been baiting, attacking, and, at times, downright offensive. Of course, the problem is that any comments I make like this are useless, because you're set in your ways, are incapable of looking at things from other people's perspective, and really, even if you could be blocked (say, if this went to ArbCom), you have nothing to lose, since you're not really interesting in actually editing Wikipedia, anyway. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a shame, since I'd have expected a bit more from you. Here, let me quote some of the exchanges between Feezo and myself:

Extended content

Bobthefish2: Oh well, if you insist. Allow me to remind you, however, that parody is often used in a non-hostile manner. In the absence of a sense of humour, anything can technically considered as insult, cause for offense, and reason for condemnation. Feezo: Your behavior amazes me. You got into trouble for making this kind of pointed little aside, and now you think it's a good idea to turn around and accuse other editors—and the mediator—of having no sense of humor? Bobthefish2: It appears you don't totally understand what I wrote or simply interpreted it as "Bobthefish2 objects the use of encyclopedia". Oh well. Feezo: You can check your sarcasm at the door. It has no place here. Bobthefish2: I don't know what to say really. Now, it seems you took exception to a tongue-in-cheek about aneurysm. Shall I also remind you that you've started this diversion by mis-construing my comments as sarcasm. While I understand this is your first mediation and mediations can be absolutely terrible things to behold, your continual practice of solely fixating your cross-hair on my head is not going anywhere. In fact, it appears to be contributing to conflicts instead alleviating tension. Are you sure this is the right way to go? Feezo: You don't need to say anything, as this is not a venue for discussing personal issues. You are welcome to withdraw from mediation at any time if it is causing you undue stress. If you have a serious complaint about the way this mediation is being handled, you may contact the committee or the chair at any time.

You know, for much of the time, it was our friendly mediator who decided to start disputes. First he accused me of insulting his sense of humour, then he accused me of using sarcasm, and then he accused me of threatening to call up the chair to oust him - all of which were shown to be pretty much false. And instead of contesting the validity of his accusations, our mediator decided to asked me of why I had to remind him that "he started this", which in part, confirms his role as the instigator. As a result, while your sexual harassment analogies sounded all very insightfully applicable, but I don't think they will apply in practice.

Then of course (and as usual), you decided to very conveniently overlook all those wonderful walls of text Tenmei and Phoenix wrote to condemn various aspects of Feezo's competence. Do you think I can do the same without attracting your ire? I don't think so because you seem to have set your mind in stone regarding who is the aggressor. You know... if you actually expect others to listen to your criticisms, you should really try to make sure those said criticisms are applied indiscriminately. After all, impartiality of judgment is a pivotal criteria to gain an informed listener's trust.

As for contributions, you are welcomed to downplay whatever I did really. Let's see... along with STSC, I was one of the very few that actually wrote a lot about what to scrutinize in these search results. Then along with you, I was one of the few who actually bothered to re-assess some seemingly impressive results. Then what other productive discussions do we have? There's certainly Lvhis' big section about NPOV and WP taking sides. And then aside from that, there's really nothing else that can be considered very productive unless you would like to include Tenmei's multiple threads about "bait and switch" and "conflation". So if you are to accuse me of contributing occasionally to the mediation, then I am not sure who in your mind was constantly contributing. Yourself? Tenmei?

Anyhow, we've been through these kinds of discussions before. I don't expect either of us changing our positions.

--Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, probably not. Phoenix7777 was warned by another editor. And while Tenmei's wall-o'-texts are a problem, they're not a civility problems; they're also a problem that I generally try not to raise specifically due to the RFC/U I/we filed on him. I'll not worry about going through and refuting your other points, as it is, as you imply, not particularly useful. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

My friend Qwyrxian, I am not trying to be unreasonable here. Since you have decided to proclaim that Tenmei has no civility problem, here are a few excerpts that I would like you to make sense out of (all authored by our friend Tenmei):

• Accusing others of engaging in bait and switch: "The patterns of bait and switch in threads have frustrated incremental progress and the ultimate goals of collaborative editing."
• Accusing others as gullible: "Problem: Feezo was wikt:credulous here when caution was needed. [8 words]"
• Accusing others of making up dishonourable/insincere stories: "Problem: Lvhis presented a wikt:disingenuous story here; and Feezo endorsed it here without investing any effort in parsing the consequences. [17 words]"
• Accusing mediator of trying to get an easy way out by not dealing with "dishonesty" of others: "Feezo validates and vests dishonesty and unwillingness to engage (non-responsive tactics) as practical, effective, cost-free and mediator-approved strategies."
• Accusing others of orchestrating bait and switch gambit: "Problem: Qwyrxian wikt:orchestrated the bait and switch gambit which underlies the problems mentioned above. [11 words]"

With that said, it's definitely possible that you don't find these statements at all offensive. If that's the case, then I will use Tenmei's posts as a case study on how I can better communicate my thoughts inoffensively. You are also welcomed to not reply to this post if you do not want to explain to me why these comments are considered appropriate and civil. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Diaoyutai

OK. Thanks for letting me know, I'll have some input on that over there later. STSC (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It's just another trick, his argument won't stand. STSC (talk) 01:04, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Bob, your last message was moved to heading no.23 on my talk page. I replied under no.8 on yours. STSC (talk) 02:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Bob, that they keep tangling that "penny" thing has been boring me to die (like STSC said before :-)). I have no choice but to build that "very.............y" big wall of text. See if this "verrrrrrry" big wall can more or less help to end that tangling thing or tricks. --Lvhis (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

That sounds pretty normal. I'd say Qwyrxian's okay even though he can be stubborn (well at least he tries to be reasonable). Go to the naming conventions page if you want to see some of the more ridiculous arguments. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm really tired of it! STSC (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Bob and STSC, his/her points cannot stand and we may need to respond. I can try while may be somewhat delayed as have been busy.--Lvhis (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I explained it pretty clearly why that doesn't make sense and so I don't feel like repeating myself again. Already, it appears this will be going in circles and it's doubtful they'd concede regardless of the logic presented. The proper way of doing this is to send this over to Project China for people who actually know Chinese to give some input to (although these opinions can be considered as biased because most of those guys are Chinese and we are dealing with a Chinese-Japanese territorial naming dispute). In the end, this type of stubborn resistance we are observing is quite expected, so I would be surprised if things go smoothly. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The 3-sided dispute argument is being used to treat Diaoyu and Diaoyutai separately. That's ok if you feel there's the need to transfer the thread to Project China. STSC (talk) 09:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Xe initiated the sovereignty issue for his/er ground of 3-way argument. Xe needs to provide the very official and direct RS proving there is naming dispute between the two sides across the Strait. All the sources Xe used cannot be treated as RS at this point.--Lvhis (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

As I've said, whether or not it is a 3-sided dispute is irrelevant. They can use that as their argument if they like, but I don't think they'd even have much like proving it's not a 2-sided dispute. To me, it just seems like a last ditch effort to game the system when their search results were overturned. I wouldn't pay too much attention to that beyond what's already given. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Bob, I know the article is part of Project China and Taiwan as indicated in the article's talk page, but it's not part of Project Hong Kong. There's no need to spread the naming dispute all over the place. STSC (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I have checked WP:CANVAS: "An editor may place a message at the talk page of a WikiProject directly related to the topic under discussion". Project Hong Kong isn't directly related. Can I revert your post there? STSC (talk) 03:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but do keep in mind that Hong Kong is part of China and so it's not actually off-topic. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not completely off-topic but believe me, you won't get many inputs in Project HK if any. STSC (talk) 03:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright. By the way. Did you see a certain feather friend screaming about CANVAS? I take it as a sign that things are going the right direction. tsk tsk --Bobthefish2 (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I know s/he is a "game" master. STSC (talk) 04:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm just watching the fire on the opposite shore. STSC (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I tried to make it clearer that people should discuss the issue at the central page, not at the pages where you pasted the discussion. —Kusma (t·c) 07:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bobthefish2. You have new messages at Benlisquare's talk page.
Message added 04:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

e-mail and all that

I have overlooked your message under Pinnacle Islands on my Talk page, sorry about that. I have set up the e-mail function on Wiki so you're welcome to e-mail anytime through my user page. STSC (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Good on you (and on your health) that you go away for a while. Just get out of sight of that Humanoid, then you'll be fine! STSC (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Same as STSC's wish, take care! We have done good job proving that the current Japanese title/name is a POV one. All of the grounds of our opponents argument such as "SI is an English name", "SI is the name mostly used in English" have been proved wrong and groundless. Even the Mediation will mostly end up with failure, the contents of the debate have been there and can be referred later. The POV-title tag shall be on as long as the POV title there and the dispute has not been solved. --Lvhis (talk) 04:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: What's up?

Hi Bob nice to see you back again. Things happened like this way that I am listing in time order:

Feezo announced the mediation formally closed --> John Smith's asked Feezo to remove the POV-tag from the main page SI --> Feezo removed the tag --> I input my confusion on Feezo's talk page --> Feezo asked me to follow the standard procedure as Xe was no longer our mediator any more --> Tenmei removed the POV-tag from the SID page and triggered BDR cycle involving me and Oda Mari, but I would say both of them acted as vandalism when they removed this legal tag --> Feezo locked the SID page on the status the tag removed by Tenmei's 2nd rv --> at meantime I made an edit request for adding back the tag in the protected SI page, and reminded admin Penwhale who ever put the tag on before Feezo removed it --> admin Penwhale granted my request adding the tag back in the main page SI --> Johm Smith's got mad and made a complaint in ANI against Penwhale --> Tenmei input a comment in admin Magog the Ogre's talk page --> Magog the Ogre went to the SID page, and unlocked + reverted it at the status before BDR triggered by Tenmei, and put a sanction there (wonderful one!) --> and then ... you got a call ... here now. Hope I am not confusing you :). --Lvhis (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You should be careful with the word "vandalism". Misusing it will undoubtedly invite the wrath of Qwyrxian. Since he has now undergone apotheosis, his wrath can be formidable. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) While Bob is right that you shouldn't misuse the word vandalism (per WP:VANDAL, it only refers to actions taken to intentionally hurt the encyclopedia, which you know well this is not), first, I'm not actually an admin yet (still 3 more days of discussion/voting), and second, even if I were, I'm clearly too involved with Lvhis and everyone else related to this dispute to take administrative action against them. And, actually, calling someone a vandal when they aren't is bad, but it wouldn't lead to an instant block anyway--it constitutes a fairly light form of a personal attack that would only result in blocking if it were regularly repeated after the user had been told to stop. Which you've now clearly been told, Lvhis. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I was just making fun of you, new admin. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, when a user repeatedly triggers edit warring by removing a legal tag given that the user has been told not to do so for many times, the consequence of such action does hurt the encyclopedia, specifically, certain pages or part of the encyclopedia. The result of a sanction applied for that affected page after such action is such hurting consequence. Magog the Ogre has used a very polite word "stupidity" for at least twice. The word vandalism here is little bit harsh but not totally inappropriate. And what I referred is the mistaken action, not the user's personal self, so nothing with "personal attack". For such instance it will be fair that you go to blame that user first. I do not doubt you have 100% chance to pass that vote. But in my mind, you are not qualified to be an administrator now yet, particularly in these pages I get involved with you and from which I have known you, as I said in my oppose vote there. But you are a good and helpful editor. --Lvhis (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't set the bar for administrator conduct to be that high. A lot of admins out there are not anywhere close to being professional anyway. In this case, I'd say Qwyrxian is professional enough by a fair margin to be an admin. At the same time, my opinion doesn't matter, so it's just moral support for what is going to be an inevitable outcome. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Bob, I left an input after yours in SI talk page. --Lvhis (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That comment was directed to Q, actually. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bob, just to reply to your message earlier: It's good to have you back to counter those edit-warlords as I'm not very active on Wiki due to work commitment. All the best! STSC (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine, Bob; thanks for your concern. STSC (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing, not the way I read it, with all due respect

Bobthefish2, I am simply offering those who seem to have a link to Qwyrxian to provide their voice, and, in doing so, I make no mention of how they should voice their opinion, which is important. In this light, I am within policy of Wikipedia, to wit: "...it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Having people who have dealt with Qwyrxian say what they think improves the quality of the nomination board because each viewer then comes away with information of a genuine sense of how Qwyrxian really is in his participation on Wikipedia. If I were to be canvassing, I would have expressly stated something to the effect of the following: "OH, please go to the nomination board and OPPOSE Qwyrxian's nomination for the position of administrator." I didn't do that, so I believe I have done nothing wrong. And, quite honestly, if Qwyrxian believes he has been such a good participant on Wikipedia, he should not have anything to fear about my wanting those with a significant dealing with Qwyrxian to provide their impression of him, good or bad. Thank you for your cooperation in considering my viewpoint! Diligent007 (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand your position and that your wording is technically not favouring one view point over another, although it does give an undertone of encouraging oppose votes (but then again, I can be biased by the fact that I saw allegations of your CANVASS before reading your posts). Another aspect of CANVASS is the choice of invitees. In your case, people can argue that you are exclusively inviting people who had problems with Qwyrxian. Off the top of my hand, I know Lvhis is definitely not going to support Qwyrxian's nomination (and he even voted OPPOSE before you invited him). STSC also seems to be another OPPOSE vote. I am not sure about the rest, since my experience in Wikipedia is not as extensive as others and I am not a wiki-policy lawyer.

For what it's worth, I voted SUPPORT albeit with some hesitation (although my vote means little more than zilch anyway). There are some definitely flaws with Qwyrxian as an editor, but then this weakness is more or less shared by almost every participant of Wikipedia. I've seen people with far less maturity and intellectual capacity being granted administratorship. If those people can be administrators, then I don't see why Qwyrxian can't be one (he's not all that bad, after all, despite being incredibly naive at times). --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Please look at the talk page of my RFA, it shows clearly why this was done in violation of WP:CANVAS. The requests were neutral--that part Diligent got correct; the problem is in the choice of editors, which was just obviously biased. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I am writing a response as we speak. By the way, I am still waiting for a response in Senkaku Islands's talk page. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

You've been quoted

You've been quoted here [1] in the statement "Bobthefish2, among others, were deprived of the ability to be informed of their opportunity to voice their opinion about the nomination. Bobthefish2 said so himself because of Qwyrxian's sly attempts of manipulating the turnout."

Just letting you know. Dayewalker (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I definitely didn't say anything about the admin-to-be is manipulating the turn out. Rather my criticism was that the admin-to-be should not involve himself with these matters. Even if it doesn't breach policy (or it might, I don't know), it is damaging to his public image. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The pronoun-noun attachment he made is also wrong. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you kindly

	Thank you for your support
	Thank you for your question and support at my RfA. I will say, I was surprised to see your support, given our...troubled past...heck, troubled present. I appreciate your willingness to provide a fair assessment. Though we will likely continue to disagree on many things, I hope that I can still fulfill your and the community's expectations as an admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's okay, I get to berate you when you do a sloppy job as an admin. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: BRD

I did. See here. Thanks. --Lvhis (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That guy (Tm) is gaming BRD cycle to prevent revision of the lead section, and intending to misleading readers the "SI" is the English name. Thanks for your support and expecting to get it continuously. --Lvhis (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Bob, thanks for your message and efforts on that discussion. I will input my comment though quite busy. Also, I will remove something from my talk page after reading. --Lvhis (talk) 21:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I will refrain from making those comments in your talk page. I can understand not everyone wants to get caught in the crossfire. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Bob very much. Calming down will benefit to the real discussion and I will always support you in substantial debating. --Lvhis (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Goading other editors

Please stop goading other editors. Some examples:

• Talking about Qwyrxian foaming at the mouth [2] [3] and sarcastically referring to him as friend [4],
• Talking about Feezo (or what is my? I don't know or care really) employment status in a derogatory way [5],
• Telling John Smith he will be sorely missed in what frankly comes across as a tongue-in-cheek tone [6]
• Talking about how you love it [emphasis yours] when Tenmei does something.

I don't know if anyone's mentioned it to you before (probably), but I personally find it to create a very bad atmosphere. I'm not going to threaten to outright block you at this point for it - I'm not a big fan of blocks for incivility unless it becomes uncorrected, but if it does continue, it could eventually lead down that road. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

5 points:

1. "Foaming at the mouth" is a metaphor for "anger" and I've explicitly hyperlinked that expression at where I used it.
2. You should read more deeply into the conversation with Feezo before pointing any fingers :). He started with a sarcastic response right at the beginning and was just as passive aggressive as I was for the rest of the exchange. It's also worth noting that he's an admin and was the instigator.
3. I called everyone my friend. This includes people who agreed with me and people who disagreed with me. In case it is not part of the American culture, Canadians often used "friend" as a generic term for an acquaintance.
4. There is nothing wrong with telling someone he will be missed when he said no one would care.
5. I have not seen any admins giving Tenmei warnings for all the hostile things he has said about me in his massive walls of texts. Just in your talk page, I can find at least 5 libels written about me by him, which ranges from "toxic long term warrior" to "fraud". Personal attacks of similar nature can be found everywhere in our two favourite SI article talk pages in much greater volume and scale (not to mention his tendentious editing). Don't you think it is strange that people can get away with far more serious offenses while others are threatened with blocks for making some allegedly sarcastic comments?

In any case, my participation in Wikipedia is limited and my interest in commenting can fade at any time. If you feel I have caused tremendous damage to Wikipedia's atmosphere, you shouldn't worry that much. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobthefish2 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

1. It was still goading - even if you'd inserted anger in the sentence, it was taunting.
2. You live in Canada? Well I live in the US, and we have similar cultures: surely your mother told you when you were young that she "didn't care who started it". Two wrongs don't make a right.
3. Yes, but you seem to say "friend" more often to your enemies. Or maybe I misread; if (and only if) I did, then sorry.
4. I haven't warned Tenmei because I honestly don't read much of the walls of texts he writes me (seeing as he's explicitly told me he isn't going to summarize, despite the requests that I and many other users have made to him).
5. See #2, above. Coming to the argument with dirty hands means only that you're both responsible.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: #1. He sounded angry and I made a statement about it. It was a necessary reminder to him that he was losing his objectivity due to his tremendous anger.

Re: #2 and #5. The difference is that you are only holding one party responsible. I certainly hope your mother had the sense not to single you out for everything that you aren't solely responsible for.

Re: #3. That could be because I talk to "enemies" far more often than "friends". However, I don't have enemies in Wikipedia, since I only have friends at varying degrees of estrangedness. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 09:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

"Nil", eh?

Hi Bob!

The first fellow's "grow a pair" was non-optimal but human, and the tone of his overall statement was more problematic. I just asked him not to repeat a sexist phrase, and took a moment to raise awareness. It was not a big deal, as the first fellow is quite right to say.

I've explained the 2nd and 3rd remarks as plausibly deliberate and not nice and I wanted them to end.

What kind of computing do you do? Not everybody loves algorithms, but is defending Knuth's definitions really buffoonery?

GO TO (as in Considered Harmful) a library was supposed to be funny; I originally wrote "Look at a pirated copy on the internet" but thought better of it. (I would have though Knuth's volumes would be on every optimization person's shelf the way Das Kapital was on every Trot's shelf.)

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 06:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's just the way you approached the discussion... namely, you weren't being very constructive. The things others wrote sounded quite reasonable and they managed to come up with a good resolution while largely ignoring your comments. The people who took part in that discussion seem pretty knowledgeable and could've been treated with more respect.

The "Nil" comment is a bit misplaced because I'd only saw what was in the diff. The later discussion about approximate vs. exact optimization methods is pretty good (i.e. not something I've thought a lot about since I don't usually deal with these types of optimization problems).

Regardless of how you actually edit, I don't really think your physical disability should be made fun of... especially by admins. I have regular run-ins with admins as well and so I do have a general idea of how immature and ineffective they can be (just like our friendly city councellors and politicians IRL). As it turns out, one of the admins who made fun of your physical disability (Elen of the Roads) had just demanded an apology from me for saying 2 other admins forgot their medications. She reasoned that the act of saying other people have forgotten their medications is considered offensive. I think the idiom for that is "shooting yourself in the foot". Anyway, try not to expect too much from admins. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Elen is usually high spirited and good fun and in every other case has had very good sense, so I have long been a fan, so much so that the thought of another manifestation of her on account of little old me, at Worm's page, was a cause for celebration ....

Well, after her performances, she's now among the mortals and allowed mortal imperfections. Give me a week and I'll be her fan again, although maybe not a dues-paying member of her fan club.

About your run-in with Elen:

Almost any academic or almost any editor here will be at least slightly obsessive, so Wikipedia should be a welcoming community for people who are a little odd. We have editors identifying themselves as depressives and schizophrenics openly; something like 40% of women will have clinical depression. I quoted Meehl on my talk page about the suicide risk for clinical depression (at least for catatonic subtype), so psychiatric illnesses are very serious. Much of the problems are genetic, or the result of trauma or abuse, so they really are not the fault of the person. We don't make fun of people wearing glasses because nature left some room for improvement. Psychiatric illnesses are still stigmatized, so I think that we should all reduce stigmatization.

Maybe you could redact that statement, and just say that those people were acting like K.W.---that may really drive them up the wall and not get you blocked!

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I actually agree Elen's one of the better admins, so we are on the same page on that.

I don't think K.W. is a good alternative. The reason being he is also stigmatized and being made fun of (in Wikipedia). The admins in question will probably say no deal :).

True, true! :-) 08:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)~

ArbCom?

Hi Bob, if ArbCom is mainly dealing with user's conduct, for the case of current naming dispute, could it be a subject that some user's conduct such as pushing wiki taking side against NPOV with original researches, double standards, ignoring most close precedent and guideline, etc, resulting in that the dispute cannot be resolved for a long time? --Lvhis (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not really the right person to ask, since I don't pay a lot of attention to policies. You should direct questions about how ArbCom works to Penwhale, Nihonjoe, and OhConfucius.

But speaking on a personal level, I'd say making a case against our mutual friend would be pretty tough. Wikipedia is as political an environment as any other community and our friend here happens to be hugely popular (as shown in his recent apotheosis to godhood and how his admin friends ganged up on an alleged canvassing user). Even though ArbCom is supposed to be the place where the most fair judgments are given out, the overall process doesn't seem very transparent with all these secret mailing lists (like the type of secret mailing lists our friend Feezo retreated to for much of that previous mediation). So, don't be surprised if you aren't getting what you want.

By the way, am I the only one to suspect our friend is getting a bit too obsessed with all this? I think his recent action is a departure from his previous operating standards. I suppose he might've snapped somewhere along our intense debates over the naming dispute. While it's a pity this happened, there are moral lessons we can take home from this... namely a fair person is not only fair when he is in agreement with friends but rather he is also fair when he is in conflict with enemies opponents. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears they started the ArbCom process already with huge blocks of texts... I think I will wait a bit. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, they started and I haven't had time to read it in detail yet. Anyway, if ArbCom could endorse that kind of conduct as I mentioned above, Wikipedia will culture or produce a perfect god. A god from human being is usually also a dictator. I am not sure all supporters for RfA will certainly hold same stance for RfD (D = dictator), based on same politics or political environment of wiki. That user alleged canvassing did do something unwisely or incorrectly, but the Closing Bureaucrat still counted in all oppose !votes. Anyway, I will be happy to witness how a perfect god is cultured out from wiki. --Lvhis (talk) 20:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration on Senkaku Islands

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Senkaku Islands and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Qwyrxian (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification of arbitration case opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 31, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your advise; I don't have much time on hand so my input was being kept short. STSC (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Workshop talkpage comments

I'm taking this off the workshop talkpage to avoid bloat and because my question is very specific. I'm slightly confused by "you can undo my move": I'm not sure which move you are referring to. Regards --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I moved it from proposals to requests in here [7] --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was looking for moves after my hatting. Proposals should be kept short, like your "The purpose of Wikipedia is to create and maintain a high-quality encyclopedia using a process of collaborative editing" comment, which is what I suggested would make a good proposal (not the section I hatted). From experience, the longer the proposal, the less likely it is that you'll get everyone to agree on it. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

My proposal was short. In fact, it was 1 sentence. There was a paragraph or two of details, but that's just background. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 08:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Bob, thanks for your critiques and suggestions on my input in "Evidence". You are right that it is more important for us to focus on the part "Evidence". --Lvhis (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I just realized there is Signpost about ArbCom when I got this [8]. It seems a kind of usefulness by taking a look at the given links. --Lvhis (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I think the summary seems quite accurate, although Cla68 is not really a major party and nobody here's actually trying to claim the islands for China. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Definitely needed that. Incidentally, I love masala tea. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, Bobthefish2. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Senkaku Islands Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, of User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Words words and User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Diffs diffs maximum, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 656 words and 51 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT^(talk) 20:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

To Alexander's bot: 1 of the 51 diffs is a duplicate of another. Word-limit is not updated, by the way. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI, I didn't instigate the WQA against you, John Smith's did; I did, though, provide a lot of the evidence. Also, I called the cartoons racist, not you. But these are minor points. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your concerns. I am quite aware of your role in the WQA and I'd recommend you to definitely check out the meaning of instigate. I can go on about the major role you took prior to its filing, but it's a relatively low priority event to document given the more important events that I had to leave out. :)

Whether you labelled me or the comics racist is a rather minor point. In the end, I was targeted as a perpetrator of something that's considered racist. :)

In the end, there's nothing there for me to correct. I apologize for spending the majority of my text describing the unfortunate run-ins with you. Although I preferred to devote my attention to other more relevant matters, the much anticipated direction impeded my intent to document the details of more relevant matters.

I will provide some commentaries about your ArbCom evidence once the deadline runes out at September 1st. By and large, they are more interesting than expected. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fine; I can see your interpretation of instigate. The "Person X is racist" versus "What person X wrote is racist" is a pretty standard distinction made at ANI, but as long as the Arbs look at my actual wording, I think it's fine. I have no idea what happens now/once the evidence phase is over. I hope it isn't "argue about all the stuff that the other people said", because that would be painfully long. I mean, I can defend myself if need be, but I'm actually more interested to see what the arbcom members think. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

If you really want to start an essay about the semantic difference between "is racist" and "wrote racist things", then go ahead. As far as I am concerned, it is still part of a series of evidence that demonstrates (among other things) a progressive development of a battleground mentality.

Like you, I am not very sure how this ArbCom will turn out. I suppose this will be a chance for me to witness the quality of justice handed out by the ArbCom, which had been a subject of praise and criticism outside of Wikipedia. Even though I am quite confident of my position, I wouldn't be surprised if things go the way of Tenmei's RFCU.

Looking back, we've gone a pretty long way. You know... I was a newbie editor who started to learn about BRD, then we were co-filers of an RFCU, and now we are pretending to be enemies in an ArbCom. That's a great experience, don't you think? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know "ban" is not the right word to use. While you are at it, do you think you can tell me if I need to make any other corrections regarding the paragraph associated with the BRD and gaming the system? For example, do you think it is correct to say it is gaming the system when a user goes on wiki-break, an admin forbade a block on a user on the grounds of wiki-break, and then the user ends the wiki-break after the case closed? I just wants to get all the WP terminologies right. Thanks. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 05:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Arb/Workshop/Proposal

Bob, regarding WP:NOR, what you raised there is not a pure Original research in discussions in deciding whether an RS is right or wrong. That was about interpretations by Japanese RS on a Chinese primary source article. WP's policy WP:SOURCE states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" while this statement tagged "under discussion". This policy also requires "Neutrality" for choosing/using RS. This was why I mainly used two RSs from Japanese authors when debating with Qwyrxian. Qwyrxian's using OR in discussion preventing consensus in edit of the page and may prevent consensus in the naming issue should not be allowable. BTW, the example you raised above has now had Chinese RS for its own interpretation or explanation, see here, reference #11.--Lvhis (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Just in case you care, I was the only active editor (that I remember, it has been a while, so it's possible Winstonlighter was still there at the time, or someone else) to support Bobthefish2 on the need to change the way the Remin Ribao source is represented. I believe the current wording is flat out wrong, for the same reasons Bobthefish2 does. That, in fact, has been my role on these articles all along--I follow the sources and our policies/guidelines. Originally I even supported the Pinnacle Islands name until I saw the totality of the data. Recently, I'm the only person on the "Japanese side" to even consider that maybe Pinnacle will end up being the best name. That's why the idea of saying that I don't follow sources, or commit OR, or am in an way a problem on these articles, is simply unbelievable. I trust that Arbcom will see that, even if you can't. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, your support back then was appreciated, but it has no bearing on your dispute with Lvhis. Since I am not familiar with the specifics of your debate, I am not going to take sides for now (until I take the time to read Lvhis' diffs). However, I would like to point out that it is not uncommon for people to behave differently depending on how much of an emotional stake they have on a matter. In your case, your strong emotional attachment towards the article-naming issue is quite known (which is something you confessed in the past). And by the way, can you describe the "totality of the data"?

Lvhis, I suppose you may be right that it's not technically OR (in WP's spirit) to decide what RS' to trust. I have not closely followed the extensive debate you had with Qwyrxian over OR and other things, but you should bear in mind that it will be your responsibility to convince the ArbCom of the allegations. And as I've said to Qwyrxian above - the chivalrousness he showed in other domains has no bearing on whether or not he has erred in a particular setting. To put it more clearly, nobody would care if DSK treated 20 other women nicely if he had indeed raped that African maid in New York. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your advise; my time is limited but I'll refine my evidence when time allows. STSC (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

You may look at the page: WP:TW. Twinkle is primarily an anti-vandalism tool; it should not be used too often for reverting good-faith edits. STSC (talk) 02:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Bob, I trust the ArbCom guys are fair-minded people, they are not Fascists or Communists! STSC (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I have got it off my chest, I shall stop commenting from now (I try!). STSC (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the treatment received by Lvhis was unfair, I'll look into it. STSC (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Bob, could you reconsider your disagreement on my "proposed principle 4.5.1.1"? OR is a quite severe violation seen by ArbCom, if what I interpreted on the sample Elen advised to us is correct. Although here Q used OR in discussion, it was still severe because preventing consensus and improvement of the page content. The case you mentioned was about if the Japanese RSs interpreting a Chinese RS were neutral or not, and how to express them in the wiki page. That was not OR. If you agreed on my such point, could you strike out your disagreeing comment there? Thanks. --Lvhis (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

My friend Lvhis, you are right that there is a difference between my example and Q's statement "the Japanese name is the real English name" (did he actually say that?), but my example also stem from original research because there is no reliable source that directly criticized the misinterpretation of a Chinese primary source by numerous Japanese-based secondary sources. I will strike out my objection if you can re-frame your proposal in a way that addresses my point. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Bob, Q's pure OR is here "SI is the real English name for the islands". What was your "OR"? I think it was your interpretation on that Chinese RS. Could you give me some specific suggestion (inputting here) how to re-frame that proposal? Thanks. --Lvhis (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that your problem with Q's statement is more about the apparent IDONTLIKEIT and IDIDNOTHEARTHAT attitude. It is as if he has made up his mind regardless of evidence (which is another bad attribute to have in WP). Also, you may want to talk about his continual quest to find evidence in favour of his POV when there's already a very large collection of evidence (many of which he introduced initially, albeit assessed incorrectly) that is obviously not in favour of his POV. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Eh, Q's OR was from IDONTLIKEIT and IDIDNOTHEARTHAT attitude, but OR is OR. He answered "No" for my question "Is SI the Japanese name for the Islands?" which even Tenmei dared not answer "No" there. I hope you are not holding the hat "OR" on you head that is not belonging to you at all. But if you cannot understand my point, just leave your comment there as it was. --Lvhis (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose his OR is the type that he refused to substantiate (maybe he did, I don't remember). If that's the case, then maybe you should direct your focus to that particular type of OR. But then again, that falls completely into the domain of IDONTLIKEIT and IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. What do you think? --Bobthefish2 (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

IDONTLIKEIT and IDIDNOTHEARTHAT is one of reasons of OR or using OR. IDONTLIKEIT and IDIDNOTHEARTHAT are not WP's critical policies while WP:NOR is. --Lvhis (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

See this [9]. I'd suggest you to reframe your OR accusations to IDONTLIKEIT and IDIDNOTHEARTHAT, which are actually more damning allegations you might imagine. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, wait. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I misunderstood something. I will re-read your proposal again tonight. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

{We have edit conflict (Smile :)), and here is the input I re for your 22:10 UTC one}: Eh ... I'm not sure. Let those leave there and let Arbitrators make their decision. --Lvhis (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Bobthefish2 asked me on my talk page to comment here. I believe that Lvhis is misunderstanding WP:OR, although in a very subtle way that is not uncommon among many Wikipedians (usually newer wikipedians, but even some long-term ones). However, to explain it all will require quite a lot of work and a likely debate on a lot of intricate details, and I don't believe this is the appropriate time for such a discussion. Obviously, Arbcom is free to rule that I did violate OR, in which case I expect I shall receive a topic ban (or worse). But as far as figuring out how to move forward on the articles, I want to wait until later; perhaps we can involve the OR noticeboard at the appropriate time (obviously, during arbitration is not the appropriate time). I am also worried that any slight mistake I might make, or any point I explain with less than perfect clarity, will be instantly copied somewhere into the proceedings as evidence that I am clearly intending to subvert Wikipedia and destroy its neutrality in order to advance my own obvious POV. That is, I don't feel "safe" discussing this now. I promise to revisit the issue if it is still relevant after Arbitration is done (assuming that I and the two of you are still allowed to discuss the issue at that point). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Qwyrxian now took a wiser way as shown in his comment or statement above on the specific issue in question regarding himself. I frowned a little bit when I saw Bob's question in Qwyrxian's talk page. It may mainly be due to Bob had some misunderstanding on the question I am discussing with him as he mentioned later here. --Lvhis (talk) 00:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

My friend Lvhis, I am sorry that you are not happy with my notification. I did it just to be fair to our friend Qwyrxian.

However, I am not impressed by our friend Qwyrxian's non-answer. Instead of providing insight on OR, he construed this invitation as a conspiracy. I believe that falls into the category of "battleground mentality", don't you think? What a shame.

Anyhow, since Qwyrxian is not interested to provide us with insight on OR, then I suppose I will be doing a bit of reading tonight to see confirm whether or not I've misunderstood your proposal. If so, you have my sincere apologies. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

And perhaps you can see my concern: even my request to leave this until after mediation is done is construed as some fault on my part. Thanks for proving my point. A clear, statement of my intention: I will discuss this issue. I will not discuss it now while arbitration is ongoing. Nor will I raise the issue at a noticeboard now. You do what you like. Oh, wait, I see below that you already have. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

This certainly sounds friendly. Sometimes, it is very hard to get advice from people without being scolded and labelled with all kinds of nasty conspiracy theories. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll be more direct here

We are not pawns in your arbitration case, We will not "win" the dispute for you based on non-specific statements there. What you are doing is Gaming system. I am half tempted to add this to the evidence page gaming behavior. Please play by the rules and explain situation at WP:NORN. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. I wasn't even accusing anyone of OR or intending to quote anyone's words. You are welcomed to report this to the ArbCom. But do consider AGF next time you make an accusation. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 02:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:RfArb/Senkaku

According to Elen of the roads, "A useful thing that the parties can do is help Arbcom with ... what it is that [WP:RfArb/Senkaku] is all about...."

It would help me -- and perhaps it would be perceived as helpful by others -- if you were willing to give your answer to Elen's question.

A summary re-statement of what you think this case is all about would appear reasonable here in the context of an analysis of the evidence you presented. --Tenmei (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The time for presenting or resummarising the case has long passed. Please read what Newyorkbrad, one of the drafting arbitrators, says four days ago. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Pre-emptive declaration about 3RR

In the event someone would like to accuse me of violating 3RR on a certain page, I would clarify that my intent was really to undo 4 consecutive changes made by a single user. As a result, I was effectively only doing 1 revert instead of 4. --Bobthefish2 (talk) 00:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

No one can accuse you of a 3RR violation. WP:3RR says "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." Thus, even by the very strict rules of 3RR, those reverts counts as only 1 "total" revert. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see that. Thanks for the heads up. :) --Bobthefish2 (talk) 22:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievious factual errors (making sure ot note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Senkaku Islands closed

An arbitration case regarding Senkaku Islands has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. User:Tenmei is indefinitely topic banned from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace.
2. Tenmei is advised that his unusual style of communication has not been conducive to resolving this dispute. Accordingly, Tenmei is urged to develop a different style of communication, which is more similar to that used by experienced Wikipedia editors. Until this happens, Tenmei is advised not to engage in topics which are the subject of a dispute.
3. Tenmei is banned for one year.
4. User:Bobthefish2 is topic banned from the subject of Senkaku Islands, widely construed, for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and user space.
5. User:STSC is warned to avoid any sexualisation of discussions, especially during disputes.
6. The parties are reminded that attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground may result in the summary imposition of additional sanctions, up to and including a ban from the project.
7. The topic covered by the article currently located at Senkaku Islands, interpreted broadly, is placed under standard discretionary sanctions. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
8. An uninvolved administrator may, after a warning given a month prior, place any set of pages relating to a territorial dispute of islands in East Asia, broadly interpreted, under standard discretionary sanctions for six months if the editing community is unable to reach consensus on the proper names to be used to refer to the disputed islands.

   While a territorial dispute is subject to discretionary sanctions due to this remedy, any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in these topical areas, after an initial warning.

For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you will shortly be mentioned in this week's 'Arbitration Report' (link). The report aims to inform The Signpost's many readers about the activities of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them in the Comments section directly below the main body of text, where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section), as well as refraining from edit-warring or other uncivil behaviour on project pages generally. Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Bobthefish2. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)