Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on June 30, 2005 19:41 (UTC)

Case Closed on 19:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Case is a re-opening of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al.

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Prior case is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al. (was closed without any action taken).

ArbCom, please re-open the closed case against Instantnood for the following reasons:

  1. It was improperly closed. Closing a case requires 4 net votes. At least one member voted to oppose closing it, which means it needed five votes to close.
  2. Instantnood took the closure of the case as clear permission to continue the behavior at issue in the case. IE, renaming anything Taiwan to Republic of China (ex: [1] the article is at Education in Taiwan, not Education in the Republic of China, he's linking to a redirect in order to push his naming POV), renaming China to mainland China, [2] (again linking to redirects for his POV), populating dead categories [3] (and the previous diff too), and furthermore, marking most of these controversial edits as minor. He's also politicking to people who agree with him [4] in order to push the exact same issues that spurred the opening of the initial arbcom case.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request[edit]

Making Instantnood aware I've asked to re-open. [5]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried[edit]

If not, then explain why that would be fruitless

Statement by SchmuckyTheCat[edit]

The existing case is already overwhelming.

Since the closing of it, Instantnood has made thousands of edits. At least 80% of which are marked as minor edit. I'm guessing of the last 2000 edits, less than 50 have an edit summary. Many of the minor edits include renaming China and Taiwan to his preferred versions - exactly what there was no consensus to do in his massive voting proposals that started the last arbcom case. Marking controversial edits as minor with no editing summary is clearly non-constructive towards building an encyclopedia.

Statement by User:Wally on behalf of User:Instantnood[edit]

If I might be indulged, this is absolutely ridiculous. The fact that the ArbCom made a procedural error should not be sufficient reason to put Instantnood under arbitration again barely two weeks after the first issue was concluded. Furthermore, the continued and continuing personal attacks against Instantnood by Schmucky — you can see below for its translation from Cantonese — absolutely pulverize any moral grounding he might have for bringing this case. Obviously he's attempted nothing further in any other area of dispute resolution since this has occured. I implore the ArbCom not to validate the intimidation levied against Instantnood and to let this issue remain concluded or, failing that, at least refer it to mediation before adjudicating it again, so at least a second hearing will have something new to show. Wally 21:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • It's not just the procedural error, it's that your client hasn't stopped the behavior that started the first one. Procedural (incorrect, even) closure of the previous case isn't carte blanche to go back to the behavior that caused it.
  • And give it up about the moral high ground. Say, Wally, just how many of these "continued and continuing personal attacks" are there? If you want to bring an RfC or RfAr against me for my behavior, bring it - it doesn't exist. In the meantime don't squawk and grandstand about "OH NOs, we've been slighted!" It confuses the issue.
  • I've given up on counting how many people lash out at your client for his browbeating obstinance. Here is one today: [6] where your client repeatedly ignored being told to go away [7]. I certainly don't blame Calton for saying "bullshit" after he told your client to go away three times previous.
  • When multiple editors are lashing out at your client, it doesn't matter how straight faced he remains. It's his behavior that is the problem. SchmuckyTheCat 16:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, that's not a very good alibi to "legalise" the libellous action, I'd say. In a sense, God forbid, a murderer could say this to the judge: "Sir, just give it up about the moral high ground. Say, just how many of these murders are there?"
Furthermore, Instantnood did not violate any rule of Wikipedia, very likely, when eagerly inviting someone to the conference table, no matter how straight-faced or stubborn or annoying he was. For those who replied in an indecent manner, they perhaps deserve a lawsuit due to their unpleasant language. Anyway, I hope there would be no more insulting dingdongs afterward. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
For the record, the "bullshit" was not aimed at Instantnood's unsolicited pestering, but his unmitigated gall in saying, in direct contradiction of the truth, that 1) he was not trying to persuade me to his point of view; and 2) implying I had not provided any kind of rationale -- though none is required -- for my simple vote at CFD.
And Jerry, about your [f]or those who replied in an indecent manner, they perhaps deserve a lawsuit due to their unpleasant language -- it appears to be written in English, but doesn't seem to make any kind of sense. Mind clarifying? What kind of "lawsuit" did you have in mind, and who was going to bring it? --Calton | Talk 2 July 2005 10:15 (UTC)
You may say that's patent nonsense as you wish. :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 2 July 2005 17:39 (UTC)
Understood. So anything you say in the future can be assumed to be patent nonsense, then. --Calton | Talk 4 July 2005 03:59 (UTC)

Statement by Snowspinner[edit]

I encourage this case to be taken up - the old case should never have been closed at all, both procedurally and factually. Instantnood is a clear problem. We need to deal with it. Snowspinner June 30, 2005 17:57 (UTC)

Statement by some random outsider[edit]

If this is not re-opened, I would like to hear the ArbCom's opinions on what to do on the entire Mainland China matter. I'm asking because Category:Economy of mainland China appeared on WP:CFD today, with Schmucky proposing a rename and Instantnood opposing that. I hope this doesn't mean we're back at square one? Radiant_>|< 23:18, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm not proposing a rename, the correct cat (and article) already exists and is used. The country is called the People's Republic of China. If Instantnood would like to rename it to "mainland China" he might suggest it to Hu Jintao. I somehow think it unlikely. SchmuckyTheCat 23:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tell me what's this: 唔屌到你唔好以為自己好撚型，屌那星! 含家呤 (Don't think you're damn smart if I don't fuck you. Fuck that star. Go to hell your entire family) I found this threatening statment in Instatnood's talk page.

Obviously, someone has made serious insult plus personal attack before the arbitration. In fact, SchmuckyTheCat used to write indecently weird phrases like 猶太陰莖貓 (Jewish Penis Cat) in his (I use "his" because he's got a penis as he claims) user page, and for many times I see he creates some users' pages by adding a full stop. I don't think that's a patent accident at all. Does it violate some rules of wikipedia? I'm new to here, and I know little about Wikipedia's policy. But I would feel terribly annoyed if someone attempted to "deflower" my user page -- that's just like rape, to be honest. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • 猶太陰莖貓 is the name I use on zh wikipedia. It isn't indecently weird. "Schmuck", of course being yiddish slang for penis.
  • Yes, I start other users userpage with a . Calling that rape is nearly a Godwin.
  • I sent Instantnood some song lyrics, which he knows very well thats all they are. And if he followed y'all around making comments about all your edits, finding offense where there are none (starting user pages with a dot) you might, eventually, get fed up too. If he wants to make a case out of it, let him. SchmuckyTheCat 21:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That should be adopted from songs of Lazy Mutha Fucka, I suppose. Don't tell me they're singing for the Church. By the way, what do you mean by "nearly a Godwin"? Please elaborate. :-D

PS I see the meaning of Schmuck. It's not weird, it's not indecent--its vulgar. :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 21:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It What SchmuckyTheCat wrote is indeed takenpart of lyric the song 含家呤 by Lazy Mutha Fucka. But in this context I will take that as a personal attack. SYSS Mouse 14:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Enough of that. The problem, as we are all aware of, is the fact that do you consider Mongolia/Macau/Hong Kong as a part of PRC? Theoretically you have to include some of them when you're talking about education or such, but there are currently differnet laws in regulation for Macau and HK. This article, if it should exist, would be better off in Mainland china. I thought we reached consensus that if it's not political we should use the Mainland china/Taiwan reference? -- Penwhale 28 June 2005 06:40 (UTC)
Pardon? I'm not that sure what you want to say...could you please elaborate? :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 28 June 2005 07:56 (UTC)
Oh, I was mentioning to the point that the RfA was filed because of an argument over the PRC/China debacle and that even though personal attacks have occurred, one should still remember why the RfA was brought up in the first place. Penwhale 28 June 2005 10:23 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for telling. :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 28 June 2005 11:13 (UTC)

Statement by Penwhale[edit]

And yet again I choose to put myself in this case so that people can see what is being commonly mistaken. I prsonally believe that Education in Taiwan should NOT be there. Taiwan = Taiwan island. It does NOT include the islands that currently under the jurisdiction of the RoC government. (Title is misleading.) And I also agree that if something does not apply to Hong Kong and Macau, it should not be titled with PRC, seeing that the term mainland China more closely describes it. It's NOT about the fact that the political entity. Sure, if Taiwan announces its independence, then fine, I am OK with keeping articles regarding Taiwan where they are. But people are using Common Names policy to rebuff NPOV.

We have GOT to make sure that the NPOV policy must override Common Names policy. We need to make sure that things are factually correct, too. I hereby sincerely request ArbCom to look at each piece of evidence separately, as these articles must be examined on a case-by-case basis and because of the current political issues, it is currently impossible to uniform all articles of these topics. Thank you. -- Penwhale 1 July 2005 13:27 (UTC)

By the way, this does NOT state that I suggest an overall move. I'm stating that some of the evidence provided by SchmuckyTheCat above, here and here (particularly on the top few lines), in an attempt to prove that Instantnood was trying to disrupt; these edits are technically correct and should not be used against him. I would have made the same edits in those two links. -- Penwhale

  • Penwhale argues here that this is a content dispute. It is not.
It is not about common names. Articles about Taiwan/ROC are scattered about named either ROC or Taiwan. There is a content dispute there, within an entire community, involving up to 40 participants. This is not about that content dispute. Penwhale presents his side in that dispute, that can be disregarded because this is not about facts about the correct name of Taiwan. It is about Instantnoods behavior.
It has been proposed to the community, three times by Instantnood, to rename these articles one way, to ROC. The community has not agreed to this, three times there has been no consensus. It is a behavior issue when Instantnood then unilaterally renames articles and links within articles to what he prefers, marking them minor edit like this is not a controversial move.
I, personally, do not care about the name of Taiwan. I rarely edit Taiwan articles, but in articles about China that I edit, I link directly to articles and avoid pipe text - which is where I encounter Instantnoods edits.
This also isn't about the NPOV policy in conflict with the common names policy. For the same reason: Instantnood is simply changing things to be the way he wants after asking the community and not gaining consensus.

SchmuckyTheCat 1 July 2005 23:18 (UTC)

And no consensus means? It means that we need someone else to look at the issue. Are you saying that we should maintain a status quo? The point is, I do not think Instantnood wants a blanket change. Ask him. Ask him if he's moving everything. Personally, I will concur part, dissent part if he's making a blanket change, as I had. The links that you put all the way up top as evidence-- those links-- are not very persuasive. Just my opinion. I'm open to more evidence, but until then, I cannot agree with your point. Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 2 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)

Statement by Huaiwei[edit]

Statement by User:Instantnood[edit]

The previous ArbCom case was not opened as a case against any single user, but a case that several users are involved. User:SchmuckyTheCat and his advocate User:Snowspinner expressed in their statements above that they were requesting to reopen the case. They did not request to have a new case. Therefore this case should not be considered a case against me, but rather, as a continuation of the previous case, a case with several parties involved. In this regard I would like to request the Arbitration Committee to change the title of the case to better reflect its nature as a continuation. Further, as this case is a continuation, the subject matter of the case should remain unchanged. Any other disputed issues unrelated to the previous case, if there is any, should not be included. Statements and evidence presented by myself and by my advocates on my behalf in the previous case remain valid and applicable. — Instantnood July 4, 2005 19:34 (UTC)

Statement by PZFUN[edit]

I am submitting a statement to the effect of factual and technical information pertaining to this argument. While Hong Kong, Macau, and China, and debateably Taiwan are under the national government of the People's Republic of China, the extent to which they co-operate is questionable. Therefore, categories like Category:Economy of Hong Kong, Category:Economy of Taiwan, et al exist to differentiate the information and to make it clear that subjects such as the Hong Kong Harbour Business Forum is not related to Taiwan, and would not make sense to be lumped together into some giant, all-encompassing category.

Furthermore, there is no nation or language that refers to the People's Republic of China as "mainland China". If anything, it is casual shorthand. It has no established useage, unlike say Metropolitan France. Since it is not properly defined (Can we include Hong Kong and Macau, but not Taiwan?, etc.) it exists outside of the realm of what is generally considered appropriate for encyclopaedias, as we should attempt to be as specific as possible with information.

To speak of the situation between SchmuckytheCat and Instantnood, I find personally that this should be less an argument of "who said what" and instead go beyond petty politics into what the real issue is: Whether the PR China should be referred to as mainland China (which is, some could argue, a uniquely Hong Kong/Macau/Taiwan point of view) or the People's Republic of China. To use my example about Metropolitan France again, the category for articles pertaining to France is Category:xx of France, and not Category:xx of Metropolitan France. Why should China be any different? Páll (Die pienk olifant) 21:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions[edit]

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

  • Accept Fred Bauder 21:24, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept - it should never have been closed, which was why I voted against the original motion. Ambi 12:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept -- sannse (talk) 11:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept. →Raul654 June 30, 2005 18:17 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

Principles[edit]

Policies and guidelines[edit]

1) Wikipedia has adopted a number of policies and guidelines, see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. While policies are binding on Wikipedia users, guidelines are not, though they should be applied in most cases. This includes Naming conventions, in this case Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese).

Passed 6 to 0 at 19:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions (Chinese)[edit]

2) Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Political_NPOV) provides, in pertinent part:

Political NPOV

Wikipedia entries should avoid taking sides on controversial sovereignty issues such as the status of Taiwan and Tibet. Although the United Nations and most sovereign states in the world have recognized the People's Republic of China as the sole government of China, Wikipedia should reflect the neutral reality and not use the term "China" to coincide with any particular state or government. In particular, the word "China" (in a political, diplomatic or national sense refering to current affairs) should not be used to be synonymously with areas under the current administration (government) of the People's Republic of China i.e. (geographically) within Mainland China. (Historical and such 'old-name' Geographic and political references before 1945—1947 excepted.)

As a general rule of thumb, the official political terms "People's Republic of China" or "PRC" and "Republic of China" or "ROC" should be used in political contexts (that is, to describe the existing regimes or governments) rather than the imprecise and politically charged terms "China" and "Taiwan." For example, "Hu Jintao is the President of the People's Republic of China" is preferred over "Hu Jintao is the President of China." Likewise, one should write "one must be an ROC citizen to vote in the ROC presidential election" as opposed to "one must be a Taiwanese citizen to vote in the Taiwanese presidential election."

Taiwan should not be described either as an independent nation or as a part of the People's Republic of China. Wikipedia should merely state the de facto situation that Taiwan is governed by an indepedent government/state/regime called the "Republic of China." When it is necessary to describe the political status of Taiwan, special note should be made of Taiwan's complex position. Thus, the term "Taiwan" should only be used when referring to the island itself. Furthermore, the term "province of Taiwan" can be offensive and should only be used when attributed to its source or referring specifically to the existing division under the ROC (for example, "James Soong was the only popularly elected governor of Taiwan Province").

The term "mainland China" is a term which can be used when a comparison is to be made with Taiwan for non-political purposes. Hong Kong and Macau are generally not considered part of Mainland China, though under the jurisdiction of the PRC. Thus, it is more appropriate to write "many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting mainland China" than "many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting China" as the latter could imply that Hong Kong and Taiwan are not part of China.

Passed 6 to 0 at 19:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Changing a guideline such as Naming conventions (Chinese)[edit]

3) A guideline such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) can be changed by the Wikipedia community, see how policies are decided. This policy provides for consensus decision-making by those users who are familiar with the matter, in this case, regular editors of Chinese-related topics.

Passed 6 to 0 at 19:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Continued validity of guidelines under discussion[edit]

4) An existing guideline such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) remains in full force and effect until it is changed in conformity with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#How are policies decided?,

Passed 6 to 0 at 19:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Editorial judgement[edit]

5) All Wikipedia policies, guidelines and naming conventions should be applied in a thoughtful way appropriate to the circumstances of the situation. Rote, mechanical application of a naming convention is more likely to be disruptive than productive.

Passed 6 to 0 at 19:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

6) Wikipedia uses categories as an aid to the reader. They are not intended to be information in themselves, but are useful in finding information. As applied to this case, Literature of Hong Kong can appropriately be in both the category "Literature of Hong Kong" and "Literature of China" despite the possibility that some part of the literature of Hong Kong may not be included within the literature of China (perhaps a domestic sketch of an English household living in Hong Kong).

Passed 6 to 0 at 19:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Context[edit]

7) A Wikipedia user's behavior must be considered in the context of the other editors editing in the same area. A user should not be singled out for behavior engaged in by others in the same editing context.

Passed 6 to 0 at 19:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Findings of fact[edit]

Instantnood's behavior in context[edit]

1) Instantnood (talk · contribs) has edited aggressively in the context of changing names and proposing page moves and surveys in the context of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) but has generally honored that policy. His adversaries SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2/Workshop#Massive_name_changes_by_STC and Huaiwei (talk · contribs) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2/Workshop#Edit_history_of_List_of_companies_in_the_People.27s_Republic_of_China have been just as aggressive and disruptive and sometimes have not appropriately interpreted Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese).

Passed 6 to 0 at 19:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit warring by Huaiwei and SchmuckyTheCat[edit]

2) In pursuance of their views regarding disputed usage Huaiwei (talk · contribs) and SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs) have engaged in edit warring in order to preserve their preferred usage, for example repeatedly removing Economy of Hong Kong from Category Category:Economies by country [9] and [10].

Passed 5 to 0 at 19:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Restrictions on Instantnood[edit]

1) Instantnood (talk · contribs) is restricted to proposing only one page move, poll of editors, or policy change relating to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) per week.

Passed 6 to 0 at 19:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Instantnood edit summaries[edit]

2) Instantnood (talk · contribs) is reminded to make useful edit summaries.

Passed 6 to 0 at 19:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Joining Huaiwei[edit]

3) In order to craft a remedy which would apply to all the users involved in ongoing struggles over the matters involved here, Huaiwei (talk · contribs) is joined to this case.

Passed 5 to 0 at 19:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Instantnood placed on probation[edit]

4) Instantnood (talk · contribs) is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any article which relates to China which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. Instantnood must be notified on their talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. They may post suggestions on the talk page of any article they are banned from editing. This remedy is crafted to permit Instantnood continuing to edit articles in these areas which are not sources of controversy.

Passed 5 to 0 at 19:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Huaiwei placed on probation[edit]

5) Huaiwei (talk · contribs) is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any article which relates to China which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. Huaiwei must be notified on their talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. They may post suggestions on the talk page of any article they are banned from editing. This remedy is crafted to permit Huaiwei continuing to edit articles in these areas which are not sources of controversy.

Passed 5 to 0 at 19:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat placed on probation[edit]

6) SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs) is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any article which relates to China which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. SchmuckyTheCat must be notified on their talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. They may post suggestions on the talk page of any article they are banned from editing. This remedy is crafted to permit SchmuckyTheCat continuing to edit articles in these areas which are not sources of controversy.

Passed 5 to 0 at 19:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Remedies, update[edit]

Motion to extend Instantnood and Huaiwei probation (6/0/0/0) (6/0/0/0)[edit]

As per dicussion at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Instantnood_and_Huaiwei, both parties have continued revert-warring and disrupting normal editing on articles outside the original probation.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Instantnood_placed_on_probation is modified to: Instantnood (talk · contribs) is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any article or talk page which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. Instantnood must be notified on their talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 15:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mackensen (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 18:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Comment:
  • While I fully respect the decision of the members of the arbitration committee, in my own opinion I don't see the need to do so. Majority, if not all, of the disputes between Huaiwei and I have been around issues that are somehow Chinese-related. What is needed is to clarify what constitute "Chinese-related" in the previous ArbCom decision, instead of an amendment. Thank you. — Instantnood 18:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Huaiwei_placed_on_probation is modified to: Huaiwei (talk · contribs) is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any article or talk page which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. Huaiwei must be notified on their talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. James F. (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 15:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mackensen (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 18:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:

I think this should be merged into Instantnood 3, with a temporary injunction of some sort. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 17:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement[edit]

Procedure for banning in probation[edit]

1) Should a Wikipedia administrator feel it necessary that those placed on probation in this matter be banned from an article where they are engaged in edit warring, removal of sourced material, POV reorganizations of the article or any other activity which the user considers disruptive they shall place a template {{[user name] banned}} at the top of the talk page of the article and notify Instantnood on their talk page. The template shall include the ending date of the ban (one year from this decision) and a link to Wikipedia:Probation. The template may be removed by any one at the end of the ban. See Wikipedia:Probation

Passed 5 to 0 at 19:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Log of blocks and bans[edit]

Bans[edit]

Here log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

Blocks[edit]

  • Instantnood and Huaiwei both blocked for 24 hours on 8 Jan by Phroziac for edit warring (or "nuclear war" as Phroziac called it).
  • Huaiwei blocked for 48 hours on 11 Jan by Wgfinley for violating Category:Chinese newspapers ban above with this edit [14].
  • Instantnood for 24 hours on 12 Jan for this edit [15] (and others) on Char siu ban above. He did revert himself when he realized it [16] and "turned himself in" on my talk page [17] but I thought it still merited a 24 hour block to review the articles he is banned from editing. --Wgfinley 20:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the past 12 days these two have been banned at a clip of an article a day which isn't accounting for what we aren't finding. They have also both been blocked for 24 hrs in the case of Instant and 48 hrs in the case of Huaiwei. I believe they are both deserving of a more serious block and am blocking them both for 7 days on 24 Jan for continued edit warring after continued bans, warnings, and pleas to cease. --Wgfinley 20:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Temporarily blocked indefinitely as a self-confessed Instantnood sock, being used to post (IMO fairly unhelpful) commentary at WP:CFD. This may well justify a blocked-time reset, though I'll leave that to Wgfinley or anyone else that wants to look at that question. Alai 19:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not even two days after the block expired Instantnood is at it again, based on the following edits I have blocked him for two weeks for violation of his probation.
    Stanley [18]
    Queen's Road [19]
    Queensway, Hong Kong [20]
    Category:Cinema of Hong Kong [21]
    Category:Macau newspapers [22]
    Category:Hong Kong newspapers [23]
    --Wgfinley 22:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huaiwei also now blocked for two weeks for continued violation (causing disruption, edit warring, reverts with pointed edit summaries and no discussion) of his probation based on the following edits:


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2&oldid=1142571488"