User:Tenmei/zandbak/Hokkaido

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
This is a Wikimedia Commons user page.

If you find this page on any site other than Wikimedia Commons, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated, and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikimedia Commons itself. The original page is located at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tenmei/zandbak/Hokkaido.


azərbaycanca | български | বাংলা | čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | Nederlands | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | shqip | slovenščina | svenska | ไทย | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Wikimedia Commons


Tenmei and Nick Dowling[edit]

Initiated by Tenmei (talk) at 02:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


Involved parties[edit]

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request`
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Tenmei[edit]

This forum has not been previously challenged to contrive a "win-win" resolution, but this instance requires just that. In all other fora except WP:AN/I, my voice was unheard, lost, drowned out; and what I seek here is something like the successful intervention I encountered there.

This dispute began too quickly. Claimed offense came too soon. One sentence with citation support was added in an article with no other references cited. It was rebuffed as a "bad faith confrontation." That gambit of shocked indignation persists.

Nick Dowling frames issues consistent with a fixed confirmation bias and feigns not to understand anything which doesn't fit a pre-existing schema. In the context of this three-part restatement, please re-visit (a) the last paragraphs of the last citation Nick Dowling offers below; (b) the last two paragraphs of the first citation which is offered below. Consensus on only the first of these three was presented as encompassing the others in the beginning of Nick Dowling's text below. Cognitive dissonance excluded the 2nd and 3rd points Optigan13 raised, and the momentum of discussion on the framed topic drowned all else.

Dispute resolution failed seriatim because each was re-framed with a confirmation bias; and Nick Dowling now avoids neutral scrutiny of an extended charade by withdrawing from formal mediation. This paragraph was never possible before now.

My "bad faith" and "disruptive behaviours" are ascribed as reasons for withdrawal. My frustration is illustrated by one crucial sentence: The issues he raises are also outdated or irrelevant given that the article is now fully cited." Contrast this sentence with my serial attempts to overcome framing and confirmation bias in the dispute resolution steps listed above. Confirmation bias thwarted all queries about a credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever? How can I avoid this in future without any meaningful opportunity to examine what happened in this instance? My words and actions have been seemly, constructive, prudent. If my conduct were so irredeemable, then let Nick Dowling now support such facile claims with more than innuendo. Perceived slights can fall by the wayside; but this case puts a spotlight on worthy issues, not trival ones.

I'm seeking enough of a "win-win" outcome from this process so that the flimsy veil of any barrier to mediation is rent asunder. I'm asking the Arbitration Committee to address the gravamen of Nick Dowling's complaint in withdrawal from mediation. The case needs to be accepted, in part, because Nick Dowling's '"spin" is so at odds with observations from neutral contributors at WP:AN/I, e.g.,

  • It certainly doesn't help that Tenmei uses strong language, but I don't see it as being grossly uncivil .... --lifebaka 11:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see Tenmei's comments as particularly uncivil, though if he's causing offense, he needs to rethink the way he expresses himself .... EyeSerene 12:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nick Dowling's persisting cognitive dissonance and problems with taxonomy or nomenclature paradigms seem to foster a perception of bad faith where none exists; and worse, that point-of-view exacerbates the effect of logical fallacies which affect Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. The effort to re-focus on framing has failed and this pattern of miscommunication needs to be ameliorated.

The Committee's challenge is to achieve a kind of alchemy: to make things work out better than I dare hope. Mediation? Arbitration? The words have a specific meaning in this venue, but it should be clear that both parties have been working at cross purposes.

  • Response to Comment below: The opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games in Beijing included a timely reference to the first part of the initial section of The Analects of Confucius, "Is it not delightful to have friends coming from distant quarters?"[4] In the narrow context of my Wikipedia experience, I could not help juxtaposing another Confucian standard with the thankfully obscure implications of Nick Dowling's comment below: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?"[5] --Tenmei (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Mrg3105[edit]

  • Given I am mentioned in the above quote, it seems I should confirm that I had indeed requested removal of Nick from his position, and requested review of User:Raul654's adminship due to the dispute over renaming of an article which, to me, did not seem to be based on any accepted Wikipedia Article standards. I have since attempted a mediation with Raul654 as the initial renaming proposer--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 04:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

::Why I was asked - is quite simple.

There is a direct relationship between the two articles.
The discussion on Hyūga class identification begun with a suggestion to rename the article, and amend the lead. The discussion I participated in was over an article name, and the lead paragraphs.
In the article Hyūga class helicopter destroyer, Nick and others (note role of Buckshot06) insist that the official designation of a warship is more acceptable for Wikipedia than a generic Hyūga class aircraft carrier (for alas, helicopters are aircraft). The designation of "Hyūga class helicopter destroyer" is based on the English translation of the official Japanese classification of the warship, regardless of its obvious resemblance to an aircraft carrier.
In the article that used to be called Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation Nick, and others, insisted the opposite, that the English translation of the official designation from Soviet sources of this offensive operation's "current article title is lousy", and should be named as it is now, with a more generic, but unsourced name "Soviet invasion of Manchuria" (again not Buckshot06's participation). This despite the fact that the offensive was expressly not an invasion in the common understanding of the word.
The expression "what is good for the goose, is good for the gander" springs to mind, but alas only my own--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 12:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As per request by Tenmei--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 21:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Nick Dowling[edit]

I don't really think that this request for arbitration is warranted, and it is but the latest incident in a long string of disruptive and rude behaviour [A] by User:Tenmei over what appears to me to be a minor content dispute.[B] Tenmei is insisting on the inclusion of a sentence which describes the ships as aircraft carriers[C] and has consistently refused to acknowledge that other reliable sources call the ships different things and there is no consensus among experts on how to describe the ships[D] and no other editors support his position.[E] A paragraph describing the different views of the ships (which includes all the sources Tenmei provided) was drafted on the talk page and added to the article after unanimous consensus from the editors who comment on it was gained,[F] thereby ending the content dispute.[G] However, by his own admission Tenmei chose to sit out this discussion and instead restarted it after the text was added to the article[H]: [6]. The initial stages of his disruptive and rude behaviour over this issue should be apparent at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer (diffs to particularly rude and disruptive comments include [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] and [14] but it's probably better to scan through the whole page to get a flavour of what's been going on here), and he has for some reason personalised the dispute on me,[I] even though there are about half a dozen other editors who disagree with his views.[J] Tenmei is now making totally unwarranted attacks on me, of which this is but the latest.[K] As such, I don't agree with Tenmei's request for arbitration between he and I as a) this disagreement was not limited to two editors[L] b) the content dispute is basically finished given the consensus on the article's talk page[M] and c) this RFARB is Tenmei's latest attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.[N]

All attempts to discuss the article with this editor on the article's talk page and elsewhere have been met with rude and disruptive behaviour. I withdrew from supporting his request for mediation after he again appealed to User:Mrg3105 for advice on me[O] [15] following an earlier attempt to canvass support against me[P] [16] and despite User:Coldmachine [17] and myself [18] requesting that he not do so[Q] (Mrg was blocked[19] and placed on editing restrictions[20] for disruptive behavior, which included (but was not limited to) his behaviour towards Raul and I, and this is how he appears to have come to Tenmei's attention given his initial approach[R]: [21] (note that Tenmei's post references Mrg's attempt to get me sacked and is titled 'Common cause?'[S])). Tenmei's uncivil posts[T] and over-reaction to disagreements on the request for mediation's talk page[U] also gave me little confidence in his desire to enter into a good-spirited conversation about the article (for instance, [22]). WP:M allows editors to withdraw from mediations if they wish (and this RFM hadn't even been accepted), and I had warned Tenmei that my participation was reliant on him behaving civilly and in good faith ([23]). Please note that Tenmei has been warned about his disruptive and rude behavior over this issue multiple times but this has not made any difference at all (for instance, [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32] and many more times). Please also note that I took this matter to ANI a few weeks ago, where I was advised to go through the dispute resolution process first and Tenmei was warned against his behaviour: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive456#Personal abuse and disruptive behaviour by Tenmei (this diff by EyeSerene sums up the outcomes of the ANI report in my view: [33]). Nick Dowling (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Additional comment I note that User:Tenmei is now threatening to report me at WP:ANI[V]: [34]. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

__________

--

Nick Dowling -- I've crossed out "with all due respect" above. I avoid personal attack by focusing on your words. You repeat a disingenuous question and your words have garnered my full attention. --Tenmei 12:17, 13 July 2008
Tenmei, please stop commenting on the editor, instead of the issue. There is no need to make allegations that Nick Dowling is intentionally mischaracterizing the issue to an uninvolved editor; if you disagree with his interpretation, simply give your own. Parsecboy 13:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I consider Tenmei's above comments on me to be both uncivil and offensive and request that they cease. Nick Dowling (talk) 02:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
As there seems to be a consensus I've added the text to the article. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in creating compromise text
To his credit, Bellhalla encouraged my participation in this exchange of views. The following invitation was initially posted at User Talk:Tenmei. I hope my purposely delayed reply will be seen as useful:
Tenmei -- Have you read the proposed paragraph about the class description of Hyūga class helicopter destroyer? I believe that it covers all viewpoints and is a good compromise and supported by appropriate references. Take a look at it here. Your comments, especially, are welcome. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Bellhalla -- When I initiated this dispute, I anticipated that it would lead to something like the work you've done here. I don't know what to make of the fact that it required your unique intervention to move towards this cooperative, consensus-building teamwork. In this, my reactions were something like confused + annoyed = puzzled? Although I don't know the original context for the following quotation, a friend of mine often repeats it:
"Anyone who isn't confused really doesn't understand the situation."
-- Edward R. Murrow, 1908-1965 (American journalist)
As relates to JDS Hyūga, I do understand the situation well enough; and I remain slightly confused, somewhat annoyed and more-than-a-little-bit puzzled at the same time.
Bellhalla, do I need to acknowledge that, absent your posting, an essential element of encyclopedic content would not have been added in mid-2008, maybe not before Spring 2009? If this were correct, why? That unanswerable question seems worth pondering.
Re-stating and re-focusing this point somewhat differently: I'm inclined to think that anything to do with these issues would not have been addressed at this time -- in mid-2008 -- if I hadn't pushed hard against Nick Dowling's unexplained resistance. Why was there such an intense, reflexive rejection? Why was the antipathy so persistent and so overwhelming? These related questions seem worth further consideration.
Bellhalla, among the points which continue to trouble me about your not-to-be-undervalued success is the very word "compromise" -- a perfectly good word to use when working collectively and an essential, irreducible concept in coming to understand anything to do with Japan and the Japanese. In part, I begin by focusing on this one word because it seems evident that, in the future, I need to re-configure my own approach to similar obstacles by making an effort to mirror yours more closely. Quite simply, something about your manner of going about things worked well in this setting and mine did not work as well as I'd have liked. That being said, I'm a little dismayed to admit that I worry about the foundation of implicit give-and-take which was such an easily identifiable element in your consensus-building work.
Bellhalla, I wonder if I'm correct in fussing about whether you and your colleagues were too ready to accept the flawed premise which Nick Dowling asserts with near-religious fervour. Dowling's seeming reliance on Jane's Fighting Ships as "the gold standard" against which all else must measured becomes too narrow, too cramped, too restrictive. The premise itself bars nuance, which represents a problem to the extent that any Wikipedia article needs to differ from its corollary entry in Jane's. Do you see my point?
It may be perceived as muddying the clarity of my argument, but the fact-of-the-matter is that this criticism of what I take to be Nick Dowling's point-of-view applies only to our consideration of this one ship class article (which effectively focuses on the as-yet-uncommissioned JDS Hyūga) and not to a review of Wikipedia articles about any other vessel in the JMSDF fleet.
Whether I point it out or not, the fact-of-the-matter is that some essential aspects of the ultimate Wikipedia article about JDS Hyūga cannot be devolved into issues of nautical terminology, maritime conventions, naval architecture, etc., which is not to say that I'm failing to recognize that Jane's describes "the depth and breadth of information cover[ing] construction and modernisation programmes, displacement and dimensions, main machinery, speed and range, weapons systems and sensors, etc.,"[1]
Bellhalla, I didn't join your working group because I couldn't figure out how to ameliorate what I see as probable consequences beyond those you intend. Expressed somewhat harshly, I didn't join this consensus-building group because it seems to me that your collective work was somewhat blindered -- wrongly focused. The group was using good tools for arriving at valid answers to meaningful questions -- yes, but Nick Dowling's leadership qualities seemed to ensure that the group would also assent in wrongly construing their successes as sufficient cause for excluding other valid, meaningful and as-yet-unexamined issues. Do you see my point?
Bellhalla, given the momentum which demonstrably affected the workings of the consensus-building group you formed, I judged the only course available was to stand aside as the process flowed towards its inevitable conclusions. Then, with the consensus-driven text as a foundation from which to build, I could attempt a "reset" in a calmer, less heedlessly confrontational context. Do you see my point?
Although I'm generally risk-averse, I gambled that some arguments are best engaged indirectly, and the consequences were to be influenced by fallible good luck. --Tenmei (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
RESET
This is a reset -- a rejoinder following the thwarted initial effort to address unresolved problems in this article consistent with NPOV guidelines.
The exchange of views above, while satisfying in its own terms, does nothing to address the still-remaining issues which Nick Dowling sought with some success to deflect. Reframing questions in which the scope of "answers" are limited by factors implicit in the premise is an impoverished logical strategy. Nevertheless, it did prove to be a useful and effective rhetorical tactic in creating the consensus which is reflected in the compromise language above. Indeed, no further exposition or discussion is necessary at this time in the context of the "Design and Specifications" section. That aspect of this article can be set aside for the moment. There will be plenty of opportunities to return to this section in 2009 as we come closer to the date when JDS Hyūga is scheduled to be commissioned.
However, the gravamen of the introductory paragraphs stands somewhat apart, arising from history and on-going disputes which have developed from quite different grounds.
Nick Dowling incautiously reverted one sentence above, and an exchange of views ensued at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer#A credible source cited vs. no sources whatsoever. The demand for Formal Mediation was unaddressed. The same pattern is repeated again -- and again, a curious post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy was offered as a substitute for addressing the substance of citations which support the disputed sentence.
The JDS Hyūga is the first aircraft carrier to be specifically constructed for Japanese marine forces since the end of the Pacific War.[2]
In this context, the demand for Formal Mediation seems likely to fail; but what alternative is better? Please re-visit this issue in a context informed by Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith. Please reconsider this problem in light of Wikipedia:Verifiability which explains, in part, that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
If this is not a pointlessly disruptive edit, what else might it be which informs my persistence? --Tenmei 14:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Please note that this "reset" exchange-of-views should also encompass the following which may have been otherwise overlooked:
See also
Perhaps it will be seen as helpful to forewarn that when the exclusive focus on one sentence in the second paragraph is resolved satisfactorily, I plan to turn my attention to one word in the first sentence.
The Hyūga-class helicopter destroyers are a type of helicopter carrier (though called helicopter destroyers (DDH) for political reasons) being built for the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF).[3][4]
It is noteworthy that this short sentence is only slightly different from other similar sentences in articles about other vessels in the JMSDF fleet; and this minor distinction is neither unjustified, irrelevant nor inessential. --Tenmei 15:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Please be direct, concise and only discuss the content, not unsubstantiated attacks against your fellow editors. Also Assume the assumption of good faith; assumption of good faith does not equal agreeing with your position.-Optigan13 02:47, 22 July 2008
Please, stop being disruptive
Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer is like car collision in which both vehicles are traveling at low speeds. As revealed in the edit history, the full range of nuanced, subtle, non-NPOV fundamentals in this talk page "accident" are set in 2007, not in 2008. In this context, re-framing questions in which the scope of "consensus" is limited by factors implicit in the premise is an impoverished logical strategy. --Tenmei
This edit is precisely the problem which other editors are highlighting in your conduct. From my perspective here, it's looking like you are intentionally being disruptive to prove a point. There's no need for this, as amusing as you may find it to be. Again, I repeat the request which a number of editors have already made - including myself - that you engage with other users on the talk page, and discuss your points succinctly and without resorting to personal attacks or being pointy. Coldmachine 16:28, 29 July 2008
Duplicative: see above -Optigan13 02:47, 22 July 2008
Deliberate redundancy for emphasis, yes; but not a sledgehammer. I post these rhetorical questions on your personal talk page, hoping to avoid being perceived as a heedless trouble-maker. --Tenmei 21:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Tenmei, I have neither the time nor inclination to involve myself in the content disputes in which you are embroiled to the extent you appear to require. I have at no point claimed perfection in the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia; I have, however, pointed them out as the framework within which you should be editing and resolving your disputes. Instead you choose to lambaste others with hyperbole to drive home your point. Trying to rally others towards the same sort of disruptive approach to dispute resolution not only affirms the view I hold but is also unhelpful to the extreme. Coldmachine 23:56, 30 July 2008
Optigan13 -- In conclusion, I can do no more than urge you to think again. --Tenmei 04:03, 22 July 2008
A simple "Optigan13 why did you revert my edits?" would have sufficed. I reverted the talk page because mixed in with the lengthy post, you continue to grossly mischaracterize Nick Dowling and your fellow editors efforts with attacks such as "if I hadn't pushed hard against Nick Dowling's unexplained resistance", "Nick Dowling asserts with near-religious fervour", "yes, but Nick Dowling's leadership qualities seemed to ensure that the group would also assent in wrongly construing their successes as sufficient cause". All of which (on top of previous posts) assert that he is angrily conspiring against you in bad faith, and that the other editors are not acting with a mind of their own. He and the other editors deserve the same respect and assumptions of good faith we have extended to you. This doesn't necessarily mean that they have to agree with you with respect to article content. I reverted the article additions because after several (many uninvolved) editors tryed to develop a well worded compromise version above and waited patiently for just under a week to allow you ample time to respond and suggest changes to the wording, the text was added. Soon after the text was added you then added more material to slant back towards your own interpretation of the sources. Which myself and the other editors disagree with. So as stated earlier, could you please explain your concern about the article content, but in a simple and concise matter and without attacking your fellow editors? -Optigan13 06:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • B. what appears to me to be a minor content dispute
  • C. a sentence which describes the ships as aircraft carriers
  • D. consistently refused to acknowledge that other reliable sources call the ships different things and there is no consensus among experts on how to describe the ships ... WHERE? PRODUCTION?
  • E. no other editors support his position
  • F. drafted on the talk page and added to the article after unanimous consensus from the editors who comment on it was gained
  • G. thereby ending the content dispute
  • H. by his own admission Tenmei chose to sit out this discussion and instead restarted it after the text was added to the article
  • I. he has for some reason personalised the dispute on me
  • J. there are about half a dozen other editors who disagree with his views
  • K. Tenmei is now making totally unwarranted attacks on me, of which this is but the latest ... WHERE? PRODUCTION?
  • L. disagreement was not limited to two editors
  • M. content dispute is basically finished given the consensus on the article's talk page
  • N. Tenmei's latest attempt to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point
  • O. withdrew from supporting his request for mediation after he again appealed to User:Mrg3105 for advice on me
  • P. earlier attempt to canvass support against me
  • Q. despite User:Coldmachine [17] and myself [18] requesting that he not do so
  • R. this is how he appears to have come to Tenmei's attention given his initial approach
    • [54] -- Duplicative: see above at "P"
  • S. Tenmei's post references Mrg's attempt to get me sacked and is titled 'Common cause?'
  • T. uncivil posts ... WHERE? PRODUCTION?
  • U. over-reaction to disagreements on the request for mediation's talk page
  • V. I note that User:Tenmei is now threatening to report me at WP:AN ... THREATENING?

__________

  • Note 1 - Nicks statement "he again appealed to User:Mrg3105 for advice on me" seems to imply there is a restriction in editors seeking to understand actions and words of other editors, of which I'm unaware. It is certainly not a cause to withdraw from a mediation process--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 13:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Note 2 - "Mrg was blocked[55] and placed on editing restrictions[56] for disruptive behaviour, which included (but was not limited to) his behaviour towards Raul and I" - I was not blocked for disruptive behaviour or behaviour towards Raul654 and Nick, but for alleged "incivility and personal attacks" (sic, a single "attack"), namely towards Buckshot06 (at least according to the provided diffs)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 13:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Note - yes, it was lousy behaviour on my part. Glad to see the articles are ok though--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 03:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Seicer[edit]

RFAR is used to conduct emergency actions to remove administrator privileges in case of abuse, to solve venomous disputes between administrators, and to solve matters referred to ArbCom by Jimbo. This case does not fall within any of those three bounds, and this case is not serious enough to warrant ArbCom's attention.

I would like to express my displeasure with reading the comments initated by Tenmei, who has attempted other forms of dispute resolution but has all but disengaged other editors from participating. Parties are not agreeing towards mediation because of this issue, and it seems that Tenmei is purposefully engaging editors in what is a petty edit war.

I would not mind mediating the issue, but with restrictions, and with the acceptance of others. seicer | talk | contribs 13:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Statement from uninvolved AGK[edit]

Although I concur with the majority of Seicer's statement (above), I do wish to observe that there is some leeway for the Committee to make a positive improvement to this dispute. The problems with resolving the parallel content dispute at Hyūga class helicopter destroyer have their roots in conduct issues -- specifically, the unwillingness of parties to take dispute resolution "seriously".

It is within the ArbCom's remit, to resolve these conduct disputes (as well as the Community's, although unfortunately the matter has not had any attempts on the Community's part to sort out the parties' conduct): by passing a decision which will have the effect of giving the parties who refuse to enter into any serious dispute resolution (yet continue to be an obstacle to reaching a consensus on a variety of content matters) a serious 'shake'.

The Committee could help here, although I suspect they will refuse to on the grounds that the Community has not yet exhausted all methods of settling the parallel conduct issues: understandable -- arbitration must not be allowed to be a "quick fix" for conduct issues, as it is often treated (especially in cases such as this, where conduct issues are the root of parallel problems with reaching a consensus on content matters).

Either way, the matter remains: something has to be done here.

AGK (talkcontact) 21:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)[edit]

  • Comment: Tenmei, please let us know when your statement is complete, and remove the stricken out material. It's bad form to modify a statement others have already responded to. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Decline. Thanks, Tenmei. But AGK is correct; this is quite premature. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reject. A content dispute is still a content dispute if accompanied by posturing, which is what I see here. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Reject. Primarily a content dispute; premature as an user conduct issue. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


Statement by {Party 1}[edit]

[FIRST DRAFT POSTING] -- This forum has not been challenged to contrive a "win-win" resolution, but this instance requires just that -- nothing less.

This dispute began too quickly. Claimed offense came too soon. One sentence with citation support was added in an article with no other references cited. It was rebuffed as a "bad faith confrontation." That gambit of shocked indignation persists.

Nick Dowling frames issues consistent with a fixed confirmation bias and feigns not to understand anything which doesn't fit a pre-existing schema. Dispute resolution failed seriatim; and Nick Dowling now avoids neutral scrutiny of an extended charade by withdrawing from formal mediation.

My "bad faith" and "disruptive behaviours" are ascribed as reasons for this untimely withdrawal. I'm calling a bluff by inviting closer scrutiny. I do so to re-engage the mediation process. My words and actions have been seemly, constructive, prudent. If my conduct were so irredeemable, then let Nick Dowling now support such facile claims with more than innuendo.

I don't care if Nick Dowling's sham sense of offended dignity is exposed for the pettiness that it is. If valid elements to this vague charge are to be found, good -- I can learn from this experience. If phoney elements are found, I'd hope for the presence of mind to rise above it. In the end -- bottom line, I'm seeking enough of a "win-win" outcome from this process so that the flimsy veil of any barrier to mediation is rent asunder.

Expressed in other words, I'm asking the Arbitration Committee to address the gravamen of Nick Dowling's complaint:

"I am withdrawing from this mediation as User:Tenmei is continuing to seek advice from a disruptive editor concerning me and is continuing to personalise this dispute. This combination of diffs shows the text in question: [57] (it is worth stressing that User:Mrg3105 was recently blocked and then placed on editing restrictions for, among other things, disruptive behaviour which included a totally unsuccessful attempt to get me sacked as an assistant coordinator of the military history wikiproject and an attempt to have one of the members of Arbitration Committee sanctioned because he didn't agree with our views and actions over a minor content dispute - Tenmei is aware of this behavior given that he quotes from and discusses the talk page discussion in question). I don't see any purpose in entering into mediation with an editor who behaves with such bad faith or who reacts in such a way to disagreements such as those I posted above." Nick Dowling (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

to scrutiny of the substance of the article about this unique ship in the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force fleet.

Nick Dowling's persisting cognitive dissonance and taxonomy or nomenclature paradigms seem to foster a perception of bad faith where none exists; and worse, that point-of-view exacerbates the effect of critical logic fallacies which affect Hyūga class helicopter destroyer.

The Committee's challenge is to achieve a kind of alchemy: to make things work out better than I dare hope -- despite whatever flaws and limitations the parties bring to this venue.

  1. "Hyūga class (CVHG) (Japan)," Jane's Fighting Ships, 2008.
  2. PBS/WNET, NYC: "Japan's About-Face: The military's shifting role in post-war society." July 8, 2008; Teslik, Lee Hudson. "Backgrounder; Japan and Its Military," Council on Foreign Relations. April 13, 2006; Hsiao, Russell. "China navy floats three-carrier plan," Asia Times (Hong Kong). January 8, 2008; "Meet Japan's New Destroyer - Updated," Information Dissemination (blog). August 23, 2007.
  3. 16DDH "13,500 ton" ton Class. Globalsecurity.org]. Retrieved on 2008-07-13.
  4. Hyuga class (CVHG) (Japan), Helicopter Destroyers. Jane's Fighting Ships (online extract). Jane's Information Group (2008-03-14). Retrieved on 2008-07-13.