→Statement by other user: arbitration committee is unlikely to set a specific naming convention |
→Statement by other user: comment |
||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
=== Statement by Thryduulf === |
=== Statement by Thryduulf === |
||
I am not at all familiar with the topic area, but this sounds like it is asking the committee to make a decision in favour of one or other naming convention. That is something the committee is likely to consider a content decision and thus outside their remit. They may consider endorsing a poll as they did for Ireland article names ([[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names]]) but it is likely that they would want to see evidence of a normal RfC having failed first - has this been tried since the arbitration case closed? If not then I suggest that as the best course of action is a structured RfC closed by a neutral administrator. Such an RfC would obviously be covered under the discretionary sanctions authorised by this case for "The topic covered by the article currently located at [[Senkaku Islands]], interpreted broadly" and so arbitration enforcement would be available for disruptive users (if necessary). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 07:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC) |
I am not at all familiar with the topic area, but this sounds like it is asking the committee to make a decision in favour of one or other naming convention. That is something the committee is likely to consider a content decision and thus outside their remit. They may consider endorsing a poll as they did for Ireland article names ([[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names]]) but it is likely that they would want to see evidence of a normal RfC having failed first - has this been tried since the arbitration case closed? If not then I suggest that as the best course of action is a structured RfC closed by a neutral administrator. Such an RfC would obviously be covered under the discretionary sanctions authorised by this case for "The topic covered by the article currently located at [[Senkaku Islands]], interpreted broadly" and so arbitration enforcement would be available for disruptive users (if necessary). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 07:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC) |
||
=== Statement by Shrigley === |
|||
NC-SoJ addresses the Sea of Japan, for which there is only one, unqualified internationally-accepted name in English. On the other hand, when discussing these islands, usage is normally split or hyphenated. News articles primarily dealing with China will say, "Diaoyu Islands, known as Senkaku in Japan"; articles dealing primarily with Japan will say "Senkaku Islands, known as Diaoyu in China". The article is titled with the Japanese name, "Senkaku Islands", simply because usage is split about 50-50, the alternative neutral English name (Pinnacle Islands) is not used much, and there's no consensus to go to the Chinese name, which would be equally biased but in the opposite direction. |
|||
SoJ dealt with the sustained problem of aggressive Korean meatpuppets going to any and every article to replace "Sea of Japan" with the obscure, parochial, and nonsensical English calque of "East Sea". No such problem exists on these Sino-Japanese islands, since the topic is of wider interest to the broader English-speaking community. However, Oda Mari has been rewriting long-stable China-related articles to erase all instances of "Diaoyu" or replace them with "Senkaku", butchering direct quotes[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=China_Marine_Surveillance&diff=559838583&oldid=559833660] and obscuring the proper names of movements and organizations[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Chan_Yuk-cheung&diff=prev&oldid=558323987]: these from his own examples brought to C&A. |
|||
My advice to Oda Mari: don't seek some sort of "ruling" to prohibit the use of "Diaoyu" anywhere on Wikipedia, because: |
|||
# There is no such mechanism outside the most drastic arbitration measures, which I doubt could even do this because of #3; |
|||
# There is no longer a problem of sustained tendentious editing; even the last arbitration case was mostly unpleasant talk page discussion |
|||
# The real-world, reliable source conditions are ambivalent, and Wikipedia cannot deviate from them too much. |
|||
There is nothing for Arbcom to do here, except perhaps to admonish Oda Mari for stirring the pot. |
|||
=== Statement by other user === |
=== Statement by other user === |
Revision as of 15:22, 15 June 2013
Requests for clarification and amendment
Clarification request: Senkaku Islands
Initiated by Oda Mari (talk) at 06:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Oda Mari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- SummerRat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Lvhis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Shrigley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Acamar Eridanus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Notified. SummerRat [1], Lvhis [2], and Shrigley [3] except a sock User:Acamar Eridanus. Oda Mari (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Oda Mari
In order to prevent edit warring, the usage of "Senkaku" and "Diaoyui" should be clarified like WP:NC-SoJ. User:SummerRat has been topic banned. See User talk:SummerRat#Topic ban because of [4], [5] and other similar edits. Similar edits by other editors are [6], [7], and [8].
Statement by Thryduulf
I am not at all familiar with the topic area, but this sounds like it is asking the committee to make a decision in favour of one or other naming convention. That is something the committee is likely to consider a content decision and thus outside their remit. They may consider endorsing a poll as they did for Ireland article names (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names, Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names) but it is likely that they would want to see evidence of a normal RfC having failed first - has this been tried since the arbitration case closed? If not then I suggest that as the best course of action is a structured RfC closed by a neutral administrator. Such an RfC would obviously be covered under the discretionary sanctions authorised by this case for "The topic covered by the article currently located at Senkaku Islands, interpreted broadly" and so arbitration enforcement would be available for disruptive users (if necessary). Thryduulf (talk) 07:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Statement by Shrigley
NC-SoJ addresses the Sea of Japan, for which there is only one, unqualified internationally-accepted name in English. On the other hand, when discussing these islands, usage is normally split or hyphenated. News articles primarily dealing with China will say, "Diaoyu Islands, known as Senkaku in Japan"; articles dealing primarily with Japan will say "Senkaku Islands, known as Diaoyu in China". The article is titled with the Japanese name, "Senkaku Islands", simply because usage is split about 50-50, the alternative neutral English name (Pinnacle Islands) is not used much, and there's no consensus to go to the Chinese name, which would be equally biased but in the opposite direction.
SoJ dealt with the sustained problem of aggressive Korean meatpuppets going to any and every article to replace "Sea of Japan" with the obscure, parochial, and nonsensical English calque of "East Sea". No such problem exists on these Sino-Japanese islands, since the topic is of wider interest to the broader English-speaking community. However, Oda Mari has been rewriting long-stable China-related articles to erase all instances of "Diaoyu" or replace them with "Senkaku", butchering direct quotes[9] and obscuring the proper names of movements and organizations[10]: these from his own examples brought to C&A.
My advice to Oda Mari: don't seek some sort of "ruling" to prohibit the use of "Diaoyu" anywhere on Wikipedia, because:
- There is no such mechanism outside the most drastic arbitration measures, which I doubt could even do this because of #3;
- There is no longer a problem of sustained tendentious editing; even the last arbitration case was mostly unpleasant talk page discussion
- The real-world, reliable source conditions are ambivalent, and Wikipedia cannot deviate from them too much.
There is nothing for Arbcom to do here, except perhaps to admonish Oda Mari for stirring the pot.
Statement by other user
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).