Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al./Evidence

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration | Instantnood, et al.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mababa (talk | contribs) at 03:14, 28 April 2005 (→Wgfinley's comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Evidence provided by SchmuckyTheCat

Original RfC

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Instantnood

POV

There are literally hundreds of articles that have been touched by him in this way. This will focus on some (out of hundreds) of fairly recent POV pushes.

First, a category. In February Instantnood proposed to move Category:Laws of the People's Republic of China to Category:Laws of mainland China on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). The discussion, which resembled a poll, gave concensus NOT to do the proposed renames. Discussion continues on a heavy basis. Regardless, Instantnood created the category "Laws of mainland China". He began moving some articles to it, in spite of the concensus not to, and began creating new articles to populate it instead of populating Laws of the People's Republic of China.

Another category, which also did not have concensus to move or create, Category:Airports of mainland China. This category was then made a redirect to "Airports of the People's Republic of China". Instantnood removed the redirect and began populating the category. His statement in the talk page of this category is very indicative that his behavior is simply gaming the rules and pedantly rules lawyering. Quote: "I am not moving existing articles to this category, rather, I categorised two new articles ... into this category." and "Renaming, ... not creating, was voted down". Both of these comments are simply begging the issue and totally avoiding concensus in order to create a parallel structure agreeing with his POV.

Finally, an article, a simple one with little content, COSCO. A revert war occured because Instantnood kept pushing this globally known company into "Companies of mainland China" instead of "Companies of the People's Republic of China". This company is a great example because it does business across the entirety of the PRC, including Hong Kong.

Other POV pushing about mainland China:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title'Communist_Party_of_China&diff'next&oldid'10872530
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title'Inner_Mongolian_People%27s_Party&diff'next&oldid'11000421
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title'List_of_political_parties_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff'prev&oldid'11635339
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title'Inner_Mongolian_People%27s_Party&diff'prev&oldid'11635307
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title'Template:Politics_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff'prev&oldid'11635143
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title'Category:Politics_of_mainland_China&action'history (created March 28)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title'List_of_political_parties_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff'prev&oldid'11635073
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title'Template:Politics_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff'prev&oldid'11634989
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title'Communist_Party_of_China&diff'prev&oldid'11634918


Edit Summaries

Instantnood marks major and disputed changes, disputed templates, and even reverts, with "minor edit" even after being reminded on multiple pages and his talk page multiple times to not do this.

We can again go back to the previous examples, here on Category:Airports of mainland China, every single one of his edits, including contentious reverts, was marked minor: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title'Category:Airports_of_mainland_China&action'history.

In this example, instead of just engaging in a revert war, I added significant content about Hong Kong in order to counter the claim that it was only a "mainland China" article. Instantnood straight out deleted more content than was there originally in his revert marked "minor edit"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title'List_of_national_parks_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China&diff'next&oldid'11381756

Subterfuge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_countries_that_only_border_one_other_country
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title'Hong_Kong&diff'11291131&oldid'11290336
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title'Hong_Kong&diff'next&oldid'10258941

Avoiding concensus

Talk:Hong Kong
Talk:Victoria City


User Space/Recreation of Deleted Material

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive12#Article_Categories_in_User_Space

Assume Good Faith

Currently at the bottom, he asked Jiang to revert my edits, and accused me of making bad faith changes to the article. Someone else agreed with my edit, and then he continued to ask how I knew the store carried HK products.

Talk:99 Ranch Market

Talk Pages/Rules of Engagement/Work towards a resolution/Filibuster

filibuster: user_talk:Huaiwei and a hundred others others, Talk:Hong Kong, Talk:Victoria City
adding bogus controversial (changed to disputed) template:
(if you see the history, Instantnood marks adding a template of controversial or disputed to be a minor edit)
adding bogus twoversions template, often without discussion


Talk Pages/Rules of Engagement/Work towards a resolution/Filibuster

incomplete

3RR Warning/Gaming Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive10#User:Instantnood

"It was a reversion right enough. And by your comment you only clarify that you are gaming the rules. You (and User:Huaiwei are both warned. Refdoc 23:44, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)"
  • Comment: SchmuckyTheCat reported at that occasion InstantNood, but conveniently forgot (and forgets now) that s/he and his/her friend User:Huaiwei were also involved in revert warring. I booked and blocked both Huaiwei and Instantnood. SchmuckyTheCat immediately started to defend Huaiwei as if 3RR is somehow better when you are on the "right" side of an editwar. At least Instantnood had the decency to apologise immediately while Huaiwei and SchmuckytheCat continued to assert being "right" - and continued subsequently to editwar. Poor show really and no reason for an ArbComm Refdoc 20:52, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Firstly, Refdoc assumes in his commentary here that SchmuckyTheCat and I are friends, as thou we know each other personally or in this website, and also indirectly suggesting that we belong to the "same faction" with similar viewpoints, or more. I believe SchmuckyTheCat himself will know and agree, that we remain fellow wikipedians who happen to share some disagreements with the habits of this one person. "Friends" is a word suggesting a collusion, which did not exist. Secondly, I clearly remember my response to Refdoc was regarding how the policy works, and what happens if people subvert that ruling. I do not remember insisting I was right. Worse, the comment "continued subsequently to editwar" suggests both of us were gulty for reigniting the edits. That cannot be further from the truth. Instantnood restarted the wars by igoring both Refdoc and User:Mailer diablo's suggestions and mediation efforts, and when it went out of control, I wrote to both of them for help. That finally did stop his edits, but not without him declaring that he will start the edits again. I would certainly think the above comment by Refdoc can be worded with greater care and fairness to all.--Huaiwei 22:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • My comment was used as "evidence" so I do have some right to explain the content. I stand by what I said. As it is there is nothing fair about this RfA. Refdoc 23:12, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • You may have the right to replain its contents, but that does not amount to directing accusations at me which are baseless and unjustified. Saying this RfA is unfair does not give you the excuse to heap more "unfairness" to it to as thou doing so will make it right. This is, afterall SchmuckyTheCat's evidence page. I dont think we would expect Instantnood's corresponding page to be any more "fair" would we? Your unjustified accusation of me "restarting" revert wars in the pages in question is completely untrue, and I have not observed SchmuckyTheCat doing the same thing either. If there are, please show the evidence.--Huaiwei 23:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response 1: Content Dispute

I'm not sure how to respond to a statement that it's a content dispute and not a behavior dispute. Wikipedia is a collaborative publishing experiment - all disputes will be about content. In this case, I have been very specific that I have left out content disputes from the evidence, actually. There are probably a hundred Wikipedia talk pages filled with Instantnoods disputes over content. People are willing to discuss with him. In some cases, people agree with him. What is at issue for RfAr, is his behavior - even the other people who agree with his content aren't engaging in his behavior. It's very clear that when Instantnood fails to gain concensus, he does what he wants anyways.

Out of the above, I'll choose a great example. Category:Laws of mainland China. Way back ago, he proposed on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) that Category:Laws of the People's Republic of China be renamed to Category:Laws of mainland China. It was met immediately with resistance, and some support - clearly not consensus. He also gamed it, the initial proposal was a discussion, not a poll. So when, two weeks later, he decided to make it a poll, those objections "didn't count". Regardless of the gaming and lack of concensus, he made the category and began populating it after being told it was a bad idea but before his poll. His excuse? "I am not moving existing articles to this category, rather, I categorised two new articles ... into this category." and "Renaming, ... not creating, was voted down"

He created, [2] without consensus, a parralel structure that agrees with what he wants. It's not a content dispute for other editors, I'm certainly not the only one either, to go to these parallel categories and move the articles back into the original. Begging the question that the poll wasn't about his new parallel structure but only about renaming the old? C'mon, that's the kind of hair-splitting teenagers try to use on their parents.

He also states that he's never actually violated 3RR. First, 3RR is the hard and fast limit, nobody is entitled to 3RR, revert warring itself is innately bad behavior. There have been plenty of times I've reverted him and others have reverted him and before he reaches more, he gives up and puts up a lame controversial or disputed tag on the article. Revert warring, even without a 3RR violtion is his behavior not content.

Let's look at the 3RR: :Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive10#User:Instantnood. Read the comments by admin Refdoc, who not only told him he did revert four times, but that he was admitting to gaming it.

The other claim that this is a "content dispute" is that there have been no edit wars. I wouldn't have brough it up if there was no edit war last night. Even his version of the Chinese naming conventions says that articles should be titled with the real name of the political entity in a political context. So, over the last few weeks he began moving articles about Elections (is there anything more political than an election?!) away from categories in the People's Republic of China in his new "mainland China" categories. Note that he made these moves and marked them as minor edits, as well, to hide what he was doing. I spent hours hunting through all these categories and moving the articles back to the name "People's Republic of China". I also gave clear notice that I had done so on [3]. He didn't discuss it there, he didn't discuss it on the articles. He went straight into moving, redirecting, and re-categorizing the articles to the way he liked it. I saw what he did, and asked him to go to a talk page and discuss, which he ignored. So a dozen or so articles each got reverted two or so times and then I filed the RfAr.

What comments do other people make about his lame disputed tags:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:World_Heritage_Sites_in_China&curid=1640834&diff=0&oldid=0
Here Burgundavia got ticked at him, twice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shenzhen_Bao%27an_International_Airport
Here Jiang, who usually supports him, told him not to make stuff up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Road_Traffic_Safety_Law_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

I could find dozens of these comments. It's behavior, not content. SchmuckyTheCat 09:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Evidence provided by Wgfinley and Wally on behalf of User:Instantnood

History

To discuss the current disputes between the People's Republic of China (PRC)[4] and the Republic of China (ROC)[5] would require much space and decades of rehashing that is not necessary. It is important to identify that difficulties in this case are presented by the policy of deliberate ambiguity[6] by which these governments themselves and other governments refer to and interact with each other. Equally important is that naming conventions for these entities have been hotly contested from the UN, to the World Trade Organization, to the International Olympic Committee[7] so for Wikipedia to also encounter these issues is not surprising.

Similarly, the debate on NPOV naming conventions for the geographical and political entities in "China" is as old as Wikipedia itself. During the origins of the debate[8] which led to the current NPOV China Naming convention (please note an older version is linked here to demonstrate the convention as it existed before attempts to modify it as part of this dispute), a clear division in consensus materialized -- those who insist that NPOV must be maintained and the naming convention should be the paramount consideration and those who believe that method is tedious, confusing, and not in keeping with common names.

Creation of the NPOV China Naming Convention

Up until this point most of the discussion is taking place on Talk:China but moves to Wikipedia Talk: Naming conventions (Chinese). In November 2002 there is finally some movement in the dispute when Fred Bauder puts forth an idea that would form the foundation of the current NPOV China Naming convention:

Wikipedia entries should avoid taking sides on issues such as the status of Taiwan and Tibet. In particular the word China should not be used to be synonymously with areas under current administration by the People's Republic of China or with Mainland China. The term "Mainland China" is a non-political term to be can used when a comparison is to be made with Taiwan, and "China proper" is a non-political term which can be used when making a comparison with Tibet. Although the used of the term "Manchuria" is considered by some to be somewhat objectionable when used in Chinese, it is largely considered a non-political and non-objectionable term when used in English.
A decision was made after extended discussion on Talk:China to use China as the title of the article on mainland China (People's Republic). Fred Bauder 12:39 Nov 8, 2002 (UTC)[9]

Agreement is quickly reached that this proposal is the best resolution to the dispute. Beginning at this point several decisions are made that are still in use today:

Evolution of Wikipedia

At this point discussion on Talk:China is primarily about that article itself. [10] [11] But, we find one comment there of interest regarding the nature of this political dispute and how it applies to Wikipedia:

It is like groundhog day here. The facts regarding definitions are explained. Then people misunderstand or misrepresent them, go off on irrelevant tangents, so the facts are explained again, people come back, misunderstand them, misrepresent them, go off on tangents so the facts are explained again, people come back misrepresent them . . . . oh God, will someone please wake me up from this nightmare!!! ÉÍREman 23:21 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC) (Monty Python should make a film of this page. It is surreal enough!) [12]

This points out the interesting nature in the evolution of Wikipedia and the current phase that it is in. There are established norms and conventions within the community that are formed by the current group of users. Time passes and new users come who either aren't aware of those norms and conventions or don't agree with them and pursue avenues to have them changed. This is only natural and beneficial. However, in order to prevent Wikipedia from becoming controlled by individual blocks of users at a time those norms and conventions need to be difficult to change. This is the absolute central theme to the requirement of consensus to change established policy [13].

This is also the central point of our case and why we believe the Arbcom needs to intervene in this matter. Continuing from Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines:

Most policies and guidelines are thus enforced by individual users editing pages, and discussing matters with each other. Some policies are also enforced by temporary blocks (notably as a mechanism for dealing with vandalism) by admins. In extreme cases the Arbitration Committee may make a ruling to deal with highly disruptive situations, as part of the general dispute resolution procedure.[14]

We are of the belief that the Arbcom needs to intervene in this case to prevent this issue from becoming Groundhog Day again and again in the future.

Lull Before The Storm

Harmony on the naming of articles and use of terms ensues at this point. Most of the discussion on naming conventions relates to translation of terms into English, style, usage and other matters not part of the political dispute. Three archives of now long conversations are created [15] [16] [17] and all talk of the dispute has now left the current discussion page.

Occasionally someone will stumble into Talk:China looking to discuss the naming convention but is quickly referred back to Wikipedia Talk:Naming conventions (Chinese).


Groundhog Day

Groundhog Day for this dispute actually begins on December 8, 2004. It is started, interestingly enough, when an anonymous user (or one who didn't sign their name, it is difficult to tell as this talk page is now archived) wants to change the way the articles are named.[18] Jiang who has been a frequent participant in the conversations going back quite some time refers this user to the adopted convention.

Late in January Insantnood and others start a project to bring categories and articles into compliance with the NPOV China Naming convention.[19]. His proposals aren't met with broad support but discussion and consensus building on them continues to take place.

A brief lull ensues but is introduced again a couple of months later in February 2005 by Curps who states the NPOV China Naming convention contains POV statements.[20]. A rather lengthy and heated discussion erupts. Jiang tries to direct the discussion and inform about previous discussion regarding the convention.

Curps has exited the discussion at this point but decides to just change sections of the policy himself [21] [22] but gets reverted twice [23] [24] and isn't heard from again until the end of March.

At this point jguk enters the fray. I ask for some patience here as diffs are unavailable since the conversation has been archived but it important to point out some of his statements and how he goes about entering the discussion. Therefore, these quotations will be from the earlier link ([25]) but will be quoted inline.

The term "Republic of China" is little used and little understood. I admit I was thoroughly confused when I first came across the articles dealing with "Taiwan". The first principle in good article writing is not to confuse the reader. We have one generally understood term, "Taiwan", and one little understood term, that is confusing, "ROC". As to which one we should use - it's obvious - "Taiwan", as it's the only term that is generally used! jguk 19:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We should point out that at this point the convention has been in place for a little over two years without any development or movement. Looking at these comments it's difficult to distinguish it from comments made previously when the convention was adopted:

Probably, most people that want to refer to the country People's Republic of China will link to this page, as China is the name by which it is commonly known. The "PR of" part is usually only added in formal use. As far as I can judge, most of the articles linking to China also intend to link to the PR (or perhaps the "old China") but few or none intend to link to the ROC, which is better known as Taiwan - that article is also located at Taiwan.
I propose to:
* put the PR of China's article at China
* put a redirect at People's Republic of China to China
* put a redirect at Republic of China to Taiwan (it probably already exists)
Jheijmans 07:12 Jul 24, 2002 (PDT)[26]

Again, the assertions are the same -- Taiwan is the common name and the article should reflect that, this view was thoroughly debated in 2002 and the convention was reflective of that debate.

Here also jguk tries to make accusations of bias concerning the convention:

The precision you are referring to is generally of little importance to most articles on Taiwan. There is no need to deliberately overemphasise the non-Taiwan bits of the ROC to claim that articles are better named as ROC. Let me make this clear - I have never seen the term "Republic of China" or "ROC" used here in the UK. If I were to ask most people here what the capital of the Republic of China is, I imagine most would answer "Beijing". Please keep articles titles where a worldwide readership will expect to see them. Please do not confuse. And please do not keep overemphasing the difference between Taiwan and ROC, which only seems to be important in American politics and nowhere else! jguk 10:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This comment demonstrates a clear lack of understanding about the consensus that was reached to adopt the convention, American politics were never mentioned in the discussion.

Dispute Spreads

This isn't the only conversation ongoing however, now the conversations are across a few different topics and efforts including renaming templates [27] and a stub-sorting project [28]. The persons in the debates are usually the same and the positions are the same. What is being debated is the convention itself and almost none of the discussion is on the convention's talk page.

It is now early March and Instantnood tries to reframe the issue again on the convention's talk page. This conversation has since been moved to a separate talk page [29] after no responses to his proposal on the debate. At this point all hell breaks loose.

SchmuckyTheCat now enters the fray and opens by stating he believes the convention's preferred term of "Mainland China" is " absolutely meaningless semantic drivel. It should be removed from the naming conventions."[30]. Again, a reference to the convention as opposed to the proposal of complying with the convention.

Huaiwei states that each of the changes requires discussions of their own [31]. This is clearly the impetus for Instantnood to create the polls later on which are mentioned in jguk's filing of arbitration.

Schmucky offers some more opposition to the convention.[32].

jguk enters his vote [33] asking "how long will it take for Instantnood to realise he's in the minority here." A clear show of disrespect for his position.

The only remaining opposition references the convention's methodology, one I have demonstrated was quite vigorously debated and hashed out for the better part of a year and left to exist in peace for more than two years, as "ugly and cumbersome" [34].

Finally, there are several supporters of the proposal which I will not include diffs on but in contrast to inflammatory language such as "semantic drivel", "when will he realise he's in the minority" and "ugly and cumbersome" they reflect respect for the consensus reached in establishing the convention and the need for accuracy.

Attempts to Change Convention

In mid-March Schmucky introduces an exhaustive proposal in the form of "statements" he believes are consensus and for members to list if they support or not.[35]. Members start making comments about their positions on the various statements listed[36]:

  • Statement 1 is rejected, no indication of support.
  • Statement 2 is an even split.
  • Statement 3 is generally endorsed.
  • Statement 4 only has one vote with most comments stating it is confusing.
  • Statement 5 is generally opposed.
  • Statement 6 is rejected.
  • Statement 7 is rejected.

Not satisfied, with no consensus to change the convention jguk decides to add the NPOV tag to the middle of the convention[37] with a comment stating that he believes ROC should just to be referred to as "Taiwan" [38] clearly ignoring the comments made on Schmucky's "statements" above.

Edit War on Convention

While Schmucky's "statement" polling is underway Jiang makes edits to the policy [39] and explains in the talk page [40] in an effort to try to reach a consensus on changing the policy. Despite this attempt Schmucky decides to reinsert the NPOV tag [41] without discussion.

Xiong makes his entrance into the discussion by moving mass sections of the a discussion page he created entitled Talk:PRC vs ROC[42]. He is reverted three times by Ran [43] [44] [45] who asks him to stop [46] as well as by Jiang [47].

Update: Since the original entry of this evidence Xiong has filed his own evidence apologizing for the actions above. We wish to thank him for the apology as well as state that were an attitude like that more prevalent in this debate this arb case would likely not be necessary.

An anon revises the convention without discussion [48] and is reverted by Jiang [49] who noted there was no discussion. The same user makes a series of edits [50] [51] [52] with Penwhale making a partial revert [53].

Instantnood makes some suggested changes and marks them with comments [54]. One section again gets marked with the NPOV tag [55] but is reverted by Jiang [56]. Schmucky puts it back [57]. Schmucky also goes about changing and merging categories without any consensus and apparently without regard for the outcome of his "statements" that he considered to be consensus forming.[58]. Ran points out the lack of consensus [59] and the fact that Schmucky didn't sign it. Which brings us to the current status of the dispute.

Conduct Under Fire

Finally, we would like to thank SchmuckyTheCat for introducing Instantnood's RFC as evidence since it clearly shows:

  • The usual cast of characters who consistently insult and attack our client: SchmuckyTheCat, jguk, ExplorerCDT (who, by his own admission, called our client "a fucking annoying gnat" amongst other things), Huaiwei (who has said he has no intention of honoring the outcome resulting from VfD [60]), and Mababa (who has made bombarded on Wally's page [61], [62], Wgfinley's page [63], [64], and Instantnood's page [65], [66], [67] and the poll discussion page [68], [69] on issues ranging from chiding Wally and Wgfinley for representing Instantnood, demand for explanations ad infinitum, etc.).
  • Aside from themselves there are no endorsements of those views or the position taken on the RFC.
  • While some may disagree with our client's methods at times most agree his edits are consistently made in good faith: "Jguk and others have been convincingly told at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) that their mass media devoloped vision of the Taiwan-China conflict cannot be suitably reproduced in an encyclopedia that adheres to accuracy and npov. Instead, they have ignored the fact they have been out-argued (and have therefore failed to change the policy) by taking "oppose" votes at WP:RM, either by users like myself who object on different grounds or other users who are ignorant of the rules, as evidence of Instantnood's bad conduct. Instantnood has been trying to enforce the rules: they should either show the rules dont apply or work to change the rules; they have failed to do either."[70]
  • "Instantnood's behavior has been well within the bounds established by the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia."[71]
  • "User:ExplorerCDT, User:jguk, and others have taken this debate in a different direction, partly out of self-professed ignorance [72] and/or without being aware of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)." [73]

In short, there is one party who has kept his cool, refrained from personal attacks and insults, tried his best to follow established Wikipedia policies and guidelines and interestingly enough that is the person who had this case filed against him, Instantnood.

Amicus curiosus brief by MarkSweep

Work in progress. Still working on diffs, details, etc.

The following should be considered an independent view for the purposes of this ArbCom case. I should disclose that I've been tangentially involved in the underlying dispute and generally support Instantnood's goal of bringing about greater consistency and compliance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). However, I'm not speaking for Instantnood, and I am not a litigant myself, just a curious bystander.

I believe it is important to distinguish between several disputes that have been going on, at different levels:

  1. The real world political dispute between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China, going back to the beginnings of the Chinese civil war in the mid 1920s.
  2. The dispute about the substance and content of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). As Wgfinley, Wally, and Instantnood have made clear, this debate has been going on since the early days of Wikipedia, with the conventions being challenged periodically. However, the conventions themselves have been relatively stable for about two years.
  3. The dispute about the applicability and enforcement of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). Some editors have argued that the naming conventions are in violation of the NPOV policy and/or the policy on common names.
  4. A dispute about what counts as consensus, how to gauge and establish consensus to the satisfaction of all parties, and how to enforce policies supported by consensus.

In my opinion the ArbCom cannot and need not resolve the first two points. Regarding the first point, the real world situation has not been resolved for 50+ years and will not be resolved here. In fact, there is no need to resolve it here, as long as all PsOV are represented fairly.

More importantly, the ArbCom does not need to resolve the content dispute concerning the naming conventions, though it has the authority to do so if necessary. The way I see it, the consensus regarding the naming conventions has not changed; in fact, User:SchmuckyTheCat's attempts to gain consensus for his views have been rejected for the most part.

It is the third point above, concerning the applicability and enforcement of the naming conventions, that deserves the full attention of the ArbCom. In particular, I would like to submit the following propositions for consideration and hope that the ArbCom would either confirm or reject them:

  1. The WP:NPOV policy is non-negotiable. All other policies must be consistent with it.
  2. Whether a specific policy is consistent with the NPOV policy is generally decided by community consensus within the scope of the more specific policy.
  3. To the extent that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) is deemd to be consistent with the NPOV policy, it is an applicable and enforceable piece of policy.
  4. For China-related articles, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) is more specific than the policy on common names and has precedence over it.

Rationale: NPOV must not be violated (1). However, a mere accusation that a specific policy is inconsistent with NPOV does not render that policy inapplicable (2). Rather, an informed consensus is required to determine whether a specific policy item is NPOV. This is the same mechanism that is used to determine whether an article etc. is NPOV. The naming conventions are real and enforceable (3), otherwise there is no point in having them. The naming conventions serve a useful purpose, ensuring consistency and providing a central venue for debate. Without naming conventions, it's "Groundhog Day" all over the place, with the same debate being repeated over and over not only in time, but also across different talk pages of related articles. The naming conventions were crafted with the specific situation of China/Taiwan in mind (4), whereas the policy on common names wasn't. The naming conventions are more specific and should have precedence over the more general guidelines.

This brings me to my last point, namely the debate on how to gauge consensus and how to enforce policies. Several things were tried:

  • debate
  • block polls
  • individual polls
  • decrees of a benevolent dictator

None of these approaches managed to resolve the debate.

I personally would like to see some guidance from the ArbCom regarding how consensus should be gauged in contentions debates such as this one. In particular, the following questions have come up:

  • Assuming the naming conventions are supported by consensus, can they be enforced as such by an editor or admin?
    • If so, can edits that go against the naming conventions be reverted as vandalism? (I'm not suggesting that they are vandalism, but merely that 3RR may not apply.)
  • Or, assuming the naming conventions are supported by consensus, does the applicability of the naming conventions have to be established first before they can be enforced?
    • If a poll is used to establish consensus, should voters be required to name portions of the naming conventions they consider (in)applicable?
      • Can votes that do not pertain to the applicability of the naming conventions be discounted or ignored?

Rationale: A policy is only useful if it can be enforced effectively. Instantnood's attempt to enforce the naming conventions as he interpreted them have met with opposition. Some of that opposition had to do with procedure (block polls instead of individual polls), some had to do with the scope of the poll not being defined clearly (what was being voted on was the applicability of the naming conventions, which was not always made clear). However, some editors' oppose votes were accompanied by comments that indicated that they had either not read or not understood the naming conventions, or didn't care about them. It was suggested that such votes be discounted, since they did not address the underlying issue.

Evidence presented by Xiong

25 Mar

I ask ArbCom to excuse a lack of diffs here; they would be, essentially, a sideshow. In short, I stumbled on the "What to call China" debate -- not once, but several times -- while trying to work on relatively uncontroversial topics related in some way to China. I found users going for the high ground at the Pump; I replied there that I thought the entire battle was silly and the substantive issue unresolvable. This prompted one user to actually request my participation!

This definitely pushed me over the edge. I flipped out and packed up all scraps of this debate wherever I saw them and shoved them into a single page. Let them slug it out until the end of Time, but not all over the project. Oddly, this did seem to have a positive effect: I have seen much less spillage of the debate since.

I shan't defend my actions, which were way over the top; nor my words, which were even more extreme. Nor do I take any sides whatever here -- not PRC vs ROC, Instantnood vs the Cat, none of it. The whole matter is silly. All the particpants are equally in the wrong, merely by throwing more fuel on the fire.

My only request, I make on behalf of the large majority of Wikipedians who are not Chinese, and who have no dog in the fight: Please contain this debate, finally. — Xiong熊talk 23:20, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Mababa

Work in progress. Still working on diffs, details, etc.

Wgfinley's comment

Quote from the "evidence" above:

*The usual cast of characters who consistently insult and attack our client: SchmuckyTheCat, jguk, ExplorerCDT (who, by his own admission, called our client "a fucking annoying gnat" amongst other things), Huaiwei, and Mababa.-- 09:33, 25 Apr 2005 Wgfinley

I would love to see Wgfinley's evidence bolstering his story. Instantnood's constant debate and voting invloves a large number of participants and thus is certainly under public scrutiny and opinion. I was not awared of any form of dictatorship exists in Wikipedia so that any comment and exchange of opinion would be invariabley categorized as insult and attack according to Wgfinley's standard. Let me humbly suggest that incapable of efficiently advocating for one's client's behavior and logic under public scrutiny is one thing, resorting to personal attack on the witness/participants should be considered as another. This is not to comment the quality of Wgfinley's advocay on the behalf of my friend Instantnood, this is to urge Wgfinley to provide evidence and let others make their own judgement.

Thanks for the evidence provided by Wgfinley on 03:19, 26 Apr 2005. I am confident that these so called evidence would help us clarify a few facts below: 1)I urged Wally not to turn the arbitration into a ruling over content. 2)Wgfinley suggested that it is not their position to do so. I proved that he claimed a position logically contradictory to their advocacy statement. Wgfinley failed to further explain. 3)Wgfinley confused his client's case with the voting rule dispute and left an unfriendly note on my talk page. He also tried to obstruct discussion between me and Instantnood over the voting rule debate without a reason. I took his unfriendly note and changed a few lines and ask him to provide logic reasoning for the confusion. Wgfinley failed to further explain again. 4)As Instantnood's advocate, Wgfinley seemed to distrust his client's competency for any discussion and he constantly distorted the situation to wrongly accuse me.(e.g. constant questioning Instantnood all over every page he can find; where in fact we are in the middle of discussion and the discussion was well contained in pertinent pages.) I personally believe these unfactual statement is inappropriate and probably constitutes personal attack.

If attacking logical reasoning is wrong, I am guilty as charged. I waiting to see Wgfinley's evidence that I "consistently insult and attack" Instantnood, or I consider this as a personal attack on me.

MarkSweep's analysis

MarkSweep's statements stands under several assumption which may or may not be true. However, IMO, most participants found it not neutral and difficult to agree with.

  1. There is only one interpretation of the Chinese naming convention.
  2. Instantnood's interpretation is the only correct version
  3. The Chinese naming convention's applicability and generalization into every articles are universal and agreed among all of the Wikipedians
  4. The participants who opposed Instantnood's proposal are totally ignorant of the Chinese naming convention, even though Instantnood has already crystally clearly cited the Chinese naming convention in the top of the two round of votes[74][75] and used it to reject other different interpretation during the discussions.

Three times, Instantnood was opposed by the majority

Let me also show my gratitude toward Wgfinley for introducing Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV as evidence since it clearly shows that the statement 3, which specifically addressed how the term "Taiwan" to be used in article titles and acted against Instantnood's second round of Taiwan vs ROC vote, is generally endorsed among the participants[76] in late March before Instantnood initiated his second round of Taiwan vs ROC vote stated on March 31.

Please also especially take note of the fact that in that voting over statment 3, Instantnood is the only person carries strong sentiment antagonizing the endorsed statement 3.

Thus, it should be clear to the majority that Instantnood's constant vote and debate so far has already been undoubtly opposed by the majority Wikipedians in three time points within two months:

  1. Feb 2005, when Instantnood first tried to massively targeting on Taiwan related articles [77]
  2. Late March, when the Naming convention endorsed a consensus specifically addressed how the term Taiwan should be used in Taiwan related articles and thus against Instantnood's constant debate.[78]
  3. April, during Instantnood's second round of Taiwan vs ROC vote.[79]

Until now, three times of large scale gauging public opinion seems insufficient to convince Instantnood that his so-called NPOV convention interpretation is not considered NPOV; and his advocates still proclaimed to bringing their client's POV into reality in their earlier advocacy at the odds of the public opinion[80].

Attitudes

In a few occasions, I have this impression that Instantood is only interested in bringing his interpretation of the consensus into reality (even though those targeted articles are NPOV already in the content) and is not interested in undertanding/accomondating the interpretation of the Taiwanese participants in the definition of the NPOV. Because of this indifference toward Taiwanese people's interpreation, Instantnood quite often would have repetitive arguement in a monotonic robotic style occur over and over again, e.g. "But the term "Taiwan" does not actually cover those islands.[81]" At the same time, Instantnood was also reminded by both Sebastian[82] and Uncle Ed about the courtesy during discussion[83]. Again, during the second round of Taiwan vs ROC vote, when I questioned him about his mispresentation of the Wikipedia voting rule, he failed to show his interest to rectify his false statement. I think these evidence indicates that Instantnood majorly focus on having his controversial rule passed and is indifferent toward the other different opinion. Other participants also found Instantnood dismissive and incapable of appreciating different opinions over Taiwan-related issues as well.[84]

Please let me suggest that Wikipedia is not a cult and also that we do not religeously interpret the convention. Instead, we should exchange POV opinion and work together to reach NPOV. I personally found Instantnood failed to demonstrate his flexibility and openness during the discussion.

Side debates

There are a few side debates over the legitimacy of Instantnood's second round of Taiwan vs ROC vote, and I think it would be appropriate to be brought up so that we won't have to start a different arbitration case in the future. They mainly focus on the following questions:

  1. Can someone repetitively initiate votes until his proposal passed?[85]
  2. Is a vote under onesided get out-to-vote manipulation valid?[86]
  3. Is a vote inadequately advertised and excludes outside opinion valid?
  4. If there is a false statement in the voting rule, how should that vote be viewed? Valid and counted according to the false statement? Valid and counted according to the Wikipedia voting rule? Invalid since innocent participants are mislead? or Invalid due to potential bad faith?[87]
  5. As the vote progressed, who should be held responsible of the false statement? Is the person who made the false statement exonerated due to innocent participants' votes?

These are interesting questions bifurcated from Instantnood's second round of Taiwan v.s. ROC vote and were questioned, and I think this arbitration could set a precedence for the forthcoming similar future scenarios.

The core of debate, IMHO

In my opinion, applicability and enforcement of the naming conventions should be left to and determined by the participants, when the current convention is ambiguious in this regard. ArbComs not necessaily has to make decision on this matter especially when the neutrality of the convention is debated and the neutrality should/could only be decided through discussion, not arbitration.

Instead, today's arbitration would shed light on the following question: how long should the public endure the constant debate and voting, when these maneuveres are clearly un-endorsed and rejected by the majority Wikiepdians in multiple time points, before we can call it an abuse of the system and halt it.

A new policy to prevent constant waste of public resource and participants' time/energy[88] was called for, and I believe today's arbitration would be an important reference helping people to form detail of that new policy. --Mababa 01:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

<day1> <month>

  • <timestamp1>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp2>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp3>
    • What happened.

<day2> <month>

  • <timestamp1>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp2>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp3>
    • What happened.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood,_et_al./Evidence&oldid=12914109"