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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Response 2: Reply to First evidence by Instantnood 29Apr2005[edit]

Instantnoods advocates, immediately characterizes this as a content dispute about the naming conventions. This is not a content dispute. Furthermore, they focus on Taiwan. I don't pay a lot of attention to Taiwan articles. Maybe jguk, or someone else wants to comment about Taiwan.

Second, is an assumption that the naming conventions mean what Instantnood interprets them as. Again, an attempt to define this as a content dispute. Specifically, the naming conventions do not address at all the two behaviors that most concern me: the elevation of Hong Kong (and Macau when he remembers) to the level of an independent country and the re-naming of China/PRC to "mainland China". The naming conventions say "mainland China" can be used to differentiate China from Taiwan. It also says to use the official names. It does not say that "mainland China" is a substitute term for the PRC which Instantnood has repeatedly claimed, which obviously flies in the face of "use official names".

The advocates then claim that the naming conventions were stable for some significant period of time. If the naming conventions were as stable, undisputed, and in consensus as presented, then these article rename proposals by Instantnood wouldn't be necessary at all -- the people who gained consensus long ago took care of this, if they had consensus.

Instantnoods advocates' entry gets interesting when he discusses Groundhog Day beginning December 8, 2004, when an anonymous user suggests renaming articles and is shot down by Jiang. [4] This "anonymous" user is Instantnood. So, in essence, Instantnoods advocates have just admitted his client began this entire problem by destabilizing the "undisputed" convention for this round of arguments.

Response 2.1: Mainland China[edit]

We could have a few hundred diffs here showing Instantnood replacing "China" and "the People's Republic of China" to "mainland China" inside articles, or objecting when people correct that. This diff: [5] shows exactly the problem. The scope of the article is defined in the first two words of the article. Once having read that, the reader knows, or can know, the geograpical limits of the death penalty in China. Replacing "China" with "mainland China" 8 times in a nine paragraph article makes for horrible reading. The category change is clear to intent as well.

Details, timeline:
After a disastrous defeat in early February attempting to rename "* of Taiwan" to "* of the Republic of China" (I will leave this Taiwan issue to someone else to raise) Instantnood attempted a new, more subversive tact approaching renaming "* of China" and "* of the People's Republic of China" to "* of mainland China". First, he took one simple category "Insurance companies of the People's Republic of China" and put it on CfD [6] (note, this category was new, two days old, with no attention paid to it). On the (moved, no history) discussion page [7] Kbdank71 notes that Instantnood jumped the gun, creating the new category [8] before voting was set to end or consensus went either way. "I was going to oppose, but it seems the change has already been made. What constitutes a consensus these days?" This occured March 6-8.

On March 9 (GMT evening) and 10 (GMT morning), Instantnood begins claiming that this consensus in renaming one, nearly hidden, category with a single article is precedent to start renaming all of the China articles. [9] [10] [11] [12] (this one previously reverted, by Jiang, even the proposal for the change). When these changes start being opposed and reverted [13] Instantnood, on the GMT evening of the 10th presents one of his infamous mega-polls, only, disingenuously, he says [14] "This is not a poll." Meanwhile, over the next few weeks while everyone else is discussing his "not a poll" he is busy carrying out [15] [16] what the "not a poll" doesn't have consensus to do.

Now, since he has no consensus to move the existing categories, what is the new tact? It is to take a category with a name he likes, but that redirects to one he doesn't, and remove the redirect [17] [18] and start populating it anyways [19]. I used the example of the airports because it has the best talk page [20]. He justifies his actions, first by saying he doesn't need consensus to stop a redirect [21], that even though there was no consensus to rename, it was still ok to create new [22], and that since he took new articles and put them in this new category, it was ok because that was not moving [23] (which is also contradicted by an earlier diff [[24], which shows a move). As an aside, note also that almost all of these diffs are marked minor edit. Instantnood re-categorized anything

  • political parties [25] [26] (note: on this history, you see he reverts exactly twice on March 28 before giving up, because he doesn't want to cross 3RR. Note also: category changes and revert warring marked as minor edit),
  • Laws [27] history [28] where we note again, eight reverts and category changes by Instantnood in about as many days, regardless of other changes, all marked minor edit. At the very beginning Jiang (who, in polls on mainland China, votes with Instantnood) says on the talk page [29] "don't make it up". Because of this, Instantnood puts up a disputed template on the talk page, but without any explanatory text or attempt at discussion.
  • Cities [30] (minor edit)

Now he changes tact again. The debate about moving the articles to "mainland China" obviously does not have any consensus, but he then proposes that the "not a poll" debate turn into a real poll [31]. After a few more weeks of everyone who follows this page screaming back and forth, the page size has ballooned to an incredible 250k. It is nearly uneditable.

Score so far:
December: Query to move the articles to mainland China.
January, February: Debate within individual articles.
First part of March: "Debate" about moving the articles to mainland China.
Second part of March: Block poll to move articles to mainland China.

Finally, with the naming conventions page ballooned to 250k and conversation nearly over, a massive refactoring occurs initiated by myself and followed through by other people, including Instantnood, as well to move these massive discussions (there is another, simpler, discussion occuring about name/surname order and presentation) to sub-pages.

Now, after all these attemps, there has never been consensus to move the articles around. Instantnood tries again, this time by starting a massive block of individual polls. He opens the discussion on one of the re-factored pages, where, realistically, most people have stopped paying attention after months of debate on these proposals [32]. This debate actually goes nowhere, the community is so outraged (read the discussions, or just the first sentence of each section title if you're in a hurry: [33]) the vote page itself goes on VfD where nobody wants this vote to even occur [34].

And that brought us straight to jguk filing for Arbitration.

Response 2.2: Taiwan[edit]

Just a short note here. As I mentioned, I don't edit many Taiwan articles and rarely take place in debates about Taiwan articles. However, this is a critically important time that I did. During the massive re-factoring of the talk page, Instantnood inserted the notice that he started a massive block of individual polls about Taiwan [35]. As you'd expect with so much other commotion on this page, nobody notices. Instantnood created the page on March 31. This vote is about nine articles. No notice was placed on any article talk page. No notice was placed on CfD, VfD, Requested Moves, not anywhere. I noticed on April 2nd, and placed my votes, which I clearly state I don't feel strongly about. By the 5th of April, six days after Instantnood started the vote, he still had not publicized it. What kind of subterfuge was he hoping for? Only that single link on March 31 linked to this vote. Finally, I did it for him. I added the poll notice to every article and category talk page, every wikipedia policy page that tends to vote on renaming/deleting.

I also noted, besides the lack of publicity, that 50% approval is not the "rough consensus" that Wikipedia votes are governed by. I changed the poll to reflect that, which Instantnood reverted [36] . After publicity, other people noticed that discrepancy as well, which is obvious by the talk page.

Needless to say, none of Instantnoods proposals even got 50% approval to rename.


Response 2.3: Elevating Hong Kong[edit]

  • saving, more later.

Resonse 2.4: Proposed Relief[edit]

I've always said, and believed, that Instantnood attempts to make valid contributions and believes in the success of wikipedia. I hope these restrictions encourage positive contributions rather than be outright bans or blocks.

  1. Instantnood is prohibited from creating, renaming; or proposing to create or rename, anything with the word "China" in the title.
  2. Instantnood is prohibited from changing the link target of any article, category, template, etc that has the word "China" in it.
  3. Any change that might change the meaning of an edit is not minor. Instantnood is only allowed to mark corrections to typos as minor edits.
  4. Instantnood is allowed one revert per change to an article.
  5. Talk pages are not a forum. Instantnood is allowed a single statement for or against any proposed change. For each response made to his original statement, he is allowed a single response/rebuttal. As a response to someone elses comments, he is allowed a single response.
  6. Any new category created by Instantnood needs at least five articles to place in it, at least two of those articles must not be stubs.
  7. For every five stub articles created by Instantnood, or edits to existing stubs of less than 100 words, Instantnood must write at least two hundred words to another article.

June 25, 2005[edit]

I've previously said Instantnood uses filibuster to browbeat people into agreeing with him. That continues, [37]. Given four replies to someone that voted against him on CfD, is it any wonder that people get frustrated and lash out to make him stop[38]?

Point five of my proposal would end this filibustering while still allowing Instantnood the chance to argue for his POV.

June 29, 2005[edit]

This of course is "content" but it's content the community rejected, repeatedly. Instantnood is re-populating Category:Laws of mainland China with diffs like this, [39] (marked minor edit, of course). The irony here about this one is that since both the law and the article DO cover Hong Kong, it's not even strictly applicable to his own criteria.

This isn't about content, it's about behavior. The proposal to rename Laws of the PRC to Laws of the mainland was rejected by the community at least two times previous to his creation of it. This category was then part of his massive rename proposal that began the case in the first place. Creation and population of these categories creates a parallel categorization scheme that pushes his POV.

Another: [40] marked minor edit. He's having a slow revert war (every two or three days) where he removes China after Hong Kong. A revert, at least this one has a wordy summary - he must feel strongly about it, in an edit war isn't a minor edit.

June 30, 2005[edit]

[41] [42] [43] [44] again catting bureaucratic agencies and changing article links of the PRC to "mainland China" with a mark of minor edit.

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

History[edit]

To discuss the current disputes between the People's Republic of China (PRC)[45] and the Republic of China (ROC)[46] 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[47] 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[48] 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[49] 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[edit]

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)[50]

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:

  • China refers to "the geographical and cultural entity in East Asia".
  • Mainland China refers to the "geographical area under de facto control of the PRC".
  • Taiwan refers only to the island of Taiwan.
  • People's Republic of China refers to the current government of Mainland China founded in 1949.
  • Republic of China refers to the government founded in 1912 "from its beginnings as the former regime of Mainland China to its current existence on Taiwan today."
  • A disambiguation page is created to help direct users as well as liberal references towards disambiguation at the beginning of all of the above articles.

Evolution of Wikipedia[edit]

At this point discussion on Talk:China is primarily about that article itself. [51] [52] 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!) [53]

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 [54].

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.[55]

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[edit]

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 [56] [57] [58] 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[edit]

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.[59] 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.[60]. 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.[61]. 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 [62] [63] but gets reverted twice [64] [65] 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 ([66]) 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)[67]

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[edit]

This isn't the only conversation ongoing however, now the conversations are across a few different topics and efforts including renaming templates [68] and a stub-sorting project [69]. 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 [70] 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."[71]. 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 [72]. 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.[73].

jguk enters his vote [74] 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" [75].

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[edit]

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.[76]. Members start making comments about their positions on the various statements listed[77]:

  • 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[78] with a comment stating that he believes ROC should just to be referred to as "Taiwan" [79] clearly ignoring the comments made on Schmucky's "statements" above.

Edit War on Convention[edit]

While Schmucky's "statement" polling is underway Jiang makes edits to the policy [80] and explains in the talk page [81] in an effort to try to reach a consensus on changing the policy. Despite this attempt Schmucky decides to reinsert the NPOV tag [82] 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[83]. He is reverted three times by Ran [84] [85] [86] who asks him to stop [87] as well as by Jiang [88].

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 [89] and is reverted by Jiang [90] who noted there was no discussion. The same user makes a series of edits [91] [92] [93] with Penwhale making a partial revert [94].

Instantnood makes some suggested changes and marks them with comments [95]. One section again gets marked with the NPOV tag [96] but is reverted by Jiang [97]. Schmucky puts it back [98]. 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.[99]. Ran points out the lack of consensus [100] and the fact that Schmucky didn't sign it. Which brings us to the current status of the dispute.

Conduct Under Fire[edit]

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 [101]), and Mababa (who has made bombarded on Wally's page [102], [103], Wgfinley's page [104], [105], and Instantnood's page [106], [107], [108] and the poll discussion page [109], [110] 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."[111]
  • "Instantnood's behavior has been well within the bounds established by the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia."[112]
  • "User:ExplorerCDT, User:jguk, and others have taken this debate in a different direction, partly out of self-professed ignorance [113] and/or without being aware of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)." [114]

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.

Conclusion[edit]

Despite the murky political waters this dispute originates from the issue is really a rather simple one:

  • The NPOV China Naming convention is a few years old and has remained relatively stable and untouched since it was adopted.
  • The convention is unambiguous -- terms are clearly defined for use in a geographic sense and in a political sense.
  • The convention was precisely crafted to best retain NPOV while presenting the information, NPOV does not mean that no one is offended by terms used within the convention.
  • There are some that believe the term "mainland China" is "drivel" and not in current use is in conflict with evidence supplied by Mababa showing its use outside of Wikipedia [115], heck, I'll throw in one of my own [116].
  • There are some who refuse to believe that ROC is an accepted short form for the government primarily constituted on the Island of Taiwan and believe it is not widely accepted despite clear evidence to the contrary including this computer case box from my very own living room.
  • The above notwithstanding, there has not been a clear consensus to change the NPOV China Naming convention.
  • If such conventions are not followed and enforcement is subject to votes in every instance the warnings of WP:Democracy come in to play especially when the votes in question typically have 6-15 participants [117] and then are propped up as the "will of the community" based on slim or nonexistent majorities.
  • While the warnings of WP:Bureaucracy should be kept in mind, the convention should be followed and applied until a consensus to change it has been reached.
  • Finally, Instantnood has acted in good faith and only started the numerous polls when his opponents reverted his changes by the use of polls and he was attempting to move the discussion forward after sound rejection of ScmuckyTheCat's precis. For Instantnood's critics to take issue with him using polls to try to move forward when numerous polls are used against him is not only ridiculous it's harmful to the community. Polls are not meant to be used as tools to silence minority viewpoints, this is clear in WP:Democracy. Yet that is exactly what his opponents are saying by maintaining the position that Instantnood should just give up and go away since their alleged majority has spoken. Vigorous minority opinions are not "disruptive" to Wikipedia, they help form the foundry in which consensus is forged.

Amicus curiosus brief by MarkSweep[edit]

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.

Why is this so contentious?[edit]

Most of this case stems from a dispute about naming titles of articles. Titles are special: for each article, there can be only one. There is little room for subtlety or explaining different points of view in a title. Contentious issues can be discussed and explained in the body of the article, but not in the title. It is generally the case on Wikipedia that titles should be as neutral and accurate as possible, and also consistent across the project. Issues like making an article easy to find do not factor into the naming of an article, since redirects and "other uses" templates can be used to guide readers to relevant articles.

One of the litigants in this case, User:Jguk, seems to generally disagree with the conventions for titles, preferring instead common names [118] [119] [120], and not just in this case [121] [122].

Why did Instantnood create so many polls?[edit]

Because the Chinese naming conventions affect a sizable number of articles. Instantnood originally nominated several articles, templates, and categories en bloc on Wikipedia:Requested moves [123]. The issue being voted on there was not clear, and it was pointed out repeatedly that each page to be moved should be considered individually on a case-by-case basis [124] [125] [126]. When Instantnood floated the idea of individual polls, he referred explicitly to the precedent at Template talk:Europe [127]. Instantnood's own explanation is here.

Background and questions for consideration by the ArbCom[edit]

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.

Key events on Wikipedia:Requested moves[edit]

A brief history of Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)[edit]

  • Between December 2004 and February 2005, not much is going on.
  • 2005-02-17. Curps questions the "Political NPOV" section of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) on its talk page.[133] Debate ensues.
  • 2005-02-27. Instantnood states that s/he has nominated (on Wikipedia:Requested moves) seven articles and one category with "Taiwan" in their titles to be renamed to use "Republic of China" instead. Instantnood declares that this is intended to bring the articles in line with the naming conventions.[134] Debate ensues.
  • 2005-03-10. Instantnood considers renaming 15 categories and 13 articles with "China" or "PRC" in their titles to use "Mainland China" instead. Instantnood asks for discussion aimed at establishing consensus on these proposed moves, cites relevant portions of the naming conventions, and links to background reading.[135] Debate ensues.
    • 2005-03-16. Instantnood asks whether a poll on the "Mainland China" moves is warranted.[136]
    • 2005-03-24. Ran comments on the "Mainland China" poll, saying "(I might want to look at the moves case-by-case but I support the idea in general.)"[137]
    • 2005-03-26. Ran strikes out part of his earlier comment, but reaffirms his view that some moves should be considered on a case-by-case basis.[138]
  • 2005-03-15. SchmuckyTheCat posts 7 statements concerning the meaning of various terms and asks for feedback to establish consensus.[139] Debate ensues.
    • 2005-03-31. The most recent edit in this debate is added.[140] The debate seems to be over at that point.
  • 2005-03-25. Xiong adds "Xiong's last word", namely "{{xiongxiong}}".[141] This refers to a long template, which has since disappeared. Its content and some of the resulting discussion have been preserved at User talk:Xiong/Chinatalk. Debate and reverting ensue.
  • 2005-03-31. Amerinese moves a large portion of the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV.[142][143]

Tactics of editors opposing Instantnood[edit]

Some of the editors that Instantnood interacted with were acting in bad faith. I've posted a notice at WP:ANI#User:Amerinese, User:DINGBAT et al.. The upshot is that Instanood's attempts to establish consensus for the proposed Taiwan → ROC moves were subverted by sockpuppet voting. The same holds for the poll on the scope of the Taiwan article that Instantnood participated in. The editors involved in the widespread sockpuppetry are not litigants in this case, but I'm beginning to wonder whether they should be.

Evidence presented by Xiong[edit]

25 Mar[edit]

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[edit]

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

Wgfinley's comment[edit]

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 am still waiting to see Wgfinley's evidence that I "consistently insult and attack" my friend Instantnood, or I shall consider this as the Wikipedia's advocator Wgfinley's personal attack on me. I think it is extremely disrespectable and inappropriate for a Wikipedia's advocator to engage into personal attack in his advocacy work.

MarkSweep's analysis[edit]

MarkSweep's statements stands under several assumptions which may or may not be true. However, IMO, most participants found it difficult to agree with and found calling them ignorant as presumtious.

  1. The convention is consistant with NPOV policy.
  2. There is only one interpretation of the Chinese naming convention.
  3. Instantnood's interpretation is the only correct version
  4. The Chinese naming convention's applicability and generalization into every articles are universal and agreed among all of the Wikipedians
  5. The participants who opposed Instantnood's proposal are absolutely ignorant of the Chinese naming convention, even though Instantnood has already crystally clearly cited the Chinese naming convention in the top of all six round of votes(links see below) and used it to reject other different interpretation during the discussions.

Most voters are conscientious votes[144] who do not agree with the proposals.

Eight times, Instantnood was opposed by the majority[edit]

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[145] in late March before Instantnood renewed his effort initiating another 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 who carries strong sentiment antagonizing the endorsed statement 3.

It should be clear to the majority that my friend Instantnood's habitual voting and debating so far has already undoubtly been opposed by the majority Wikipedians in eight time points within two months:

  1. Politics of Taiwan → Politics of the Republic of China[146]--19:49, Feb 16 2005 (UTC)
  2. Template:Taiwan-stub[147]--19:20, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
  3. Template:Politics of Taiwan[148]--Instantnood 19:39, Feb 16 2005 (UTC)
  4. List of metropolitan areas in Taiwan → Metropolitan areas in ROC (Taiwan)[149]--20:14, Feb 16 2005 (UTC)
  5. List of Taiwan-related topics (by category) → List of Republic of China-related topics (by category)[150]--20:11 Feb 27 2005 (UTC)
  6. Economy of Taiwan → Economy of the Republic of China[151]--20:08 Feb 27 2005 (UTC)
  7. 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.[152]
  8. April, Instantnood again engaged into another round of Taiwan vs ROC vote.[153]

Until now, eight times of large scale poll gauging public opinion still seem insufficient to convince my recalcitrant friend Instantnood that his so-called NPOV convention interpretation is not considered NPOV in the eye of the majority; and his advocates still proclaimed to bringing their client's POV into reality in their earlier advocacy at the odds of the public opinion[154].

In one instance, Instantnood was also told: Designating a large stub-category for deletion just to draw attention to it's need for splitting ( in your opinion ) is pretty close to vandalism, Insta. Courtland 23:55, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)[155]

Attitudes[edit]

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.[156]" At the same time, Instantnood was also reminded by both Sebastian[157] and Uncle Ed about the courtesy during discussion[158]. 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.[159]

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[edit]

There are a few side debates over the legitimacy of Instantnood's seventh 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 based on the same reason until his proposal passed?[160]
  2. Is a vote under onesided get out-to-vote manipulation valid?[161]
  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?[162]
  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 seventh round of Taiwan v.s. ROC vote and were questioned, and I think the community of Wikipedia would greatly benefit from this arbitration if a ruling over these questions could set a precedence for the forthcoming similar future scenarios. Please kindly let me know if I need to submit another arbitration to make this request official.

The core of this debate, IMHO[edit]

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.

As Susvolans noticed that there is no blanket NPOV section in other Wikipedia and also that the NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable, the fact that today's dispute over Instantnood's action fully illustrates the POVness of today's convention. There is certainly wisdoms resides in the Chinese naming convention, however, at the expese of many other point of views. With regard to the convention pertinent with ROC/Taiwan issue, today's conention is not consistant with NPOV at all and thus the convention should only serve as a guideline but not a sacred and holy cult law, if the applicability should be considered in this ruling.

On the other hand, if we failed to recognize the failure of this blanket NPOV convention today, we would run at risk of other voting wars in the future, for example: someone, who naively acts in good faith without ulterior intention but a pure lovely enthusiasm to enforce the convention for the sake of consistancy, repetitively initiate votes over and over again, targeting for eliminating all articles using the term "China" as a political entity in their titles, according to the naming convention.

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. Three times of revert edits would be called as disruptive, I wonder how about eight times of polls?(there could be more over the China vs PRC ones that may be pulled out from archives.)

A new policy to prevent constant waste of public resource and participants' time/energy[163] 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)

Umofomia's comment[edit]

Umofomia's comment is highly appreciated. Since he suggests that I exagerated the situation, I feel that I have to respond with the following facts, hopefully we can both agree upon:

  1. Instantnood faced and ignored the opposition from majority in multiple times (at least four times if we collapse a few attempts as Umofomia suggested).
  2. Instantnood fully understands the controversy of his proposal and the strong public opposition toward his proposal but still continued to enlisting more articles for voting. I have personally informed him about my concern in Feb 19. He probably thinks the oppostions are ignorant and his proposal should be passed with or without public protest[164].
  3. When Umofomia states: some clarifications which MarkSweep suggested and was agreed upon by the majority (Here, the majority means MarkSweep, Jiang and Instantnood).[165]
  4. When Umofomia suggested that statement 3, the one that does refer to Taiwan, is endorsed by a slight margin, he actually mean a strong 7:3 rough consensus[166]. With some fine tuning and polishment, the statement 3 could go into the consensus texts.
  5. SebastianHelm was urged to notice that Instantnood's disingenuous attitude over Taiwan issue.[167]
  6. Instantnood's contribution in Taiwan/ROC aspect is purely to repetitively instill/remind people that ROC is more than Taiwan, a statement derived from his interpretation of the Naming convnetiona and considered by many people as POV.

As for act in good faith, I found it difficult to blame on someone who single mindedly extrapolate the convention, who is not capable of showing empathy and failed to appreciate the complexity of different view points, who is not communicable and who failed to understand his view point as POV. However, I think today's disruptive result is the same regardless if he acts in good faith or not. Let me cite Jiang's comment in Instantnood's RFC: "I believe Instantnood has acted in good faith and is a genuine contributor who suffers from misguided enthusiasm."[168] It is time to stop this disruptive and misguided enthusiasm, especially this enthusiasm is not on Taiwan topics (but to proof one can dispute with a POV contained in the convention, I would say.) Enough is enough, I think.

Response to Umofomia's response toward Mababa's response
Thanks for Umofomia's response. However, let me respectfully disagree with the interpretation of the voting over statement 3. Let me suggest that, by assuming good faith, Umofomia's opinion and my opinion are no more valueable or less valuable than an anon user, unless we can demonstrate the anons were acting in bad faith. I believe, that vote is a strong 7:3 rough consensus until proven otherwise.

With regard to Umofomia comment:"leading me to believe that the conventions are not as POV as Mababa or others suggest," let me cite the cliche again: NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". I fully agree with Umofomia about the NPOVness of the content of those debated articles. However, the today's votes revealed the strong disagreement with the convention which argues using the term "ROC" would be more precise than the term "Taiwan" in the titles of these articles.

Not a case of accuracy and recognizability This is not a question of accuracy and recognizability. Please understand the result of these votes could be interpreted as referendum on the arguement "ROC is a term more precise than the term Taiwan to refer to the polity." Calling the polity with the term "Taiwan" is no more nor no less accurate than with the term "ROC." The definition of the term "Taiwan" has already evolved so that it has been widely used to refer to the government[169]. It is extremely unprofessional for an encyclopedia to ignore and reject a position where the public viewed as neutral. There is no any other polity in this whole universe could be called or refered to as "Taiwan" except the polity with a formal name "Republic of China," thus accuracy is not a question. This is the result of hundreds of ballots casted in the eight votes on different venues stand for. Calling ROC "Taiwan" is just as neutral as calling UK "Britain".

Our position was discriminated I believe that consistency and accuracy or recognizability is not a question or a problem at all in today's situation. The Chinese convention is called POV since it deliberately rejected and biased against the position which is endorsed by the most of the Taiwanese and public majority. Under the doctrine "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable," that naming convention is absolutely inconsistant with Wikipedia NPOV policy. We do not reject positions to reach NPOV, we include them.

It is easy for Instantnood to police and patrol in the Wikipedia and repetitively list articles for vote, but it takes others time and energy to research, debate, argue and reach a consensus, which is again not respected by Instantnood and thus list for votes over and over again.

It has been very pleasant to work with many who holds the opposite position; however, I have to say that I can hardly find a better word than "arrogant" to describe their actions during the past debates: 1)suggesting votes holds the opposite views do not count 2)suggesting their own view is more accurate than that of the others(where in fact is just another POV) 3)suggesting other Wikipedians to be ignorant. I wonder if there ever is a caste system in Wikipedia so that our view points should always regarded as inferior.

Instantnood has even once come to Taiwan-related topics notice board asking for the scope of the board potentially trying to list the noticing board for vote[170]. I think this is a best example revealing how arrogant Instantnood is in this Taiwan/ROC debate and how little interest Instantnood has in the Taiwan topics besides enjoying his policing work using the biased Naming convention which is probably endorsed by the majority. (here, it means three or four people with similiar political position agreeing with each other. This is a comment on the result of the convention, particularly on the one used by Instantnood to target on Taiwan articles, not a comment on participant's good faith. I had wonder experience working with most of them.)

Plead for protection from discrimination Standing on the past eight large scale votes with a result sealed by hundreds of ballots, I would like to plead ArbCom to ensure our point of view to be protected and respected in the Chinese naming convention so that our view is no longer ignored, dismissed and underpresented. On the other hand, perhaps it is time to start a Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Taiwanese) so that our view could be presented in our own NPOV policy convention. In the context of NPOV policy, I plead ArbCom should question the applicability of the naming conventions and its consistancy with the Wikipedia NPOV policy in this situation.

This being said, I still believe Instantnood's disruptive repetitive voting habit, targeting Taiwan/ROC articles to make a point that ROC is different from Taiwan, should be regard as today's core of the debate. Any person with ordinary intelligence would question the convention when the proposal being rejected by the public several times, unless he holds an ulterior intention.

Conclusion toward Instantnood's advocacy[edit]

  • Yes, NPOV is not democracy; thus, please understand that the consensus Chinese convention agreed among a few people with similar political ideology (even though I am sure in good faith) a long time ago is not consistant with NPOV in the eye of the majority.
  • The Chinese convention serves well as a informative guideline but should not be treated as the creed of a cult. What if some convention was dominated by doom's day cult members?
  • The only reason that Chinese consensus was stable in the past is because it was not strictly and religeously followed. There are tones of Chinese articles used the term "China" in the way opposite to the way "consensus" suggested. No one showed concern. Did Instantnood care? or he is just picking on Taiwan as a soft target?
  • Eight large scale votes, people voiced their disagreement against the biased convention. You had better listen to it.
  • Please repect our opinion on the usage of Taiwan since the other side has no proof that they are either more educated or we are more stupid. We fully understand and respect your POV; now please treat us in an equal way. I am personally offended because our position is discriminated during NPOVing.
  • I can find many computer box with labels "Country:Taiwan." What is that supposed to mean?
  • Instantnood and his advocates still tried to turn this arbitration into a ruling over content favoring their POV. Please come back and focus on Instantnood's disruptive behavior.
  • Instantnood should reframe from further disruptive repetitive attack over the title and content of Taiwan related article starting from today, if he only wants to make a point or wants to push his POV without ingeneous interest in Taiwan, regardless if he acts in good faith or bad faith.

Evidence presented by Umofomia[edit]

To give you a bit of background on myself, I'm mostly a third-party to this dispute and have been supportive of bringing consistency to Chinese related pages on Wikipedia, generally supporting the proposed moves by Instantnood. I generally don't involve myself on political articles and prefer to work mostly on articles dealing with Chinese language. It is for the latter that I often visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) and upon noticing the discussions taking place there, decided to voice my opinion there on March 11 [171]. Since then, I have followed this matter very closely and essentially agree with the amicus curiæ submitted by MarkSweep above.

I am adding my own section here because I feel that some of the evidence submitted by Mababa may be taken out of context. Mababa talks about Instantnood being opposed eight times, which I think is an exaggeration. Here are the diffs he presents in his evidence above (as of the time I write this):

  1. Politics of Taiwan → Politics of the Republic of China[172]--19:49, Feb 16 2005 (UTC)
  2. Template:Taiwan-stub[173]--19:20, Feb 18 2005 (UTC)
  3. Template:Politics of Taiwan[174]--Instantnood 19:39, Feb 16 2005 (UTC)
  4. List of metropolitan areas in Taiwan → Metropolitan areas in ROC (Taiwan)[175]--20:14, Feb 16 2005 (UTC)
  5. List of Taiwan-related topics (by category) → List of Republic of China-related topics (by category)[176]--20:11 Feb 27 2005 (UTC)
  6. Economy of Taiwan → Economy of the Republic of China[177]--20:08 Feb 27 2005 (UTC)
  7. 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.[178]
  8. April, Instantnood again engaged into another round of Taiwan vs ROC vote.[179]

In my opinion, actions 1 through 4 above should not be considered separate instances, but rather a single instance. It is the first time that Instantnood attempts to get the article names to adhere to the convention. From the response, it is evident that some people have issues with the naming conventions, and Curps starts the discussion on the naming conventions page [180]. However, the discussions don't really lead to any change in the conventions, but rather some clarifications which MarkSweep suggested and was agreed upon by a majority of the participants [181]. Also note that the poll started by Curps in response to Instantnood's polls is almost unanimously opposed [182].

I believe at this point Instantnood (believing that the conventions were now agreed upon) went and started polls 5 and 6 above (which I also believe should be considered a single instance). This is evidenced by the fact that he now writes in the polls:

This request is to make the titles of these articles to conform with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV: " the word "Taiwan" should not be used if the term "Republic of China" is more accurate. ".
Note: If you do not agree with the said conventions, bring the issue to its discussion page. Please do not oppose this request because you disagree with the conventions.

However, it is again opposed because of disagreement with the conventions and eventually leads to SchmuckyTheCat's statements in action 7 above. Most of them are rejected or divided, but statement 3, the one that does refer to Taiwan, is endorsed by a slight margin. At that point, Instantnood probably shouldn't have gone on to the individual polls listed in action 8, but I do believe he did so in good faith because other members had noted that the block poll done in 5 and 6 was probably not the right way to do it since the naming conventions might not be equally applicable to all the articles Instantnood suggested (see [183] and [184]).

Note that the evidence above pertains to the Taiwan vs. ROC situation. The China vs. PRC vs. Mainland is a related, but separate issue. The latter issue follows mostly the same history (initial poll, convention discussion, block poll, then large list of individual polls because block polls were too general), with the exception that the statements made by SchmuckyTheCat regarding it (essentially 1-7 except 3 [185]) were rejected. In that case, with no change to the conventions, it should not have been such a huge issue in the first place to enforce it. This is why MarkSweep raises the point that ArbCom should consider the applicability and enforcement of the naming conventions.

Although I agree with Mababa that the repetitive voting was unhelpful in this situation, I do believe that Instantnood was doing it in good faith since there was a reason why each new round was started. I have not seen any evidence that Instantnood has had an ulterior agenda other than maintaining naming consistency.

With regard to this piece of evidence cited by Mababa:

At the same time, Instantnood was also reminded by both Sebastian[186] and Uncle Ed about the courtesy during discussion[187].

...the second diff in the sentence actually refers to the use of language by SchmuckyTheCat and not by Instantnood, although it is pointed out to Instantnood by SebastianHelm in the first diff in order to remind him to be courteous when Instantnood used the phrase "who cares?" sarcastically. Other than that transgression, Instantnood has been particularly calm when dealing with the opposition. Even SebastianHelm has subsequently noted this: [188].

Response to Mababa's response to my response and more comments[edit]

Mababa wrote:

When Umofomia suggested that statement 3, the one that does refer to Taiwan, is endorsed by a slight margin, he actually mean a strong 7:3 rough consensus[189]. With some fine tuning and polishment, the statement 3 could go into the consensus texts.

I just wanted to point out that I said slight margin because two of those votes were made by unsigned anonymous users, making it 5:3.

But anyway, with regard to the overall issue, I feel the matter has become deadlocked with respect to the article titles. Most of the efforts to change the convention fail while efforts to enforce the convention in article titles fail. Note that I specifically point to article titles since the convention appears to be doing fine in terms of article content (there have been no big edit wars regarding the conventions over article content as far as I am aware), leading me to believe that the conventions are not as POV as Mababa or others suggest. There is plenty of room in articles to explain any intricacies, but this is not generally case for pithy article titles, leading us to choose between accuracy and recognizability. I use the word accuracy because for those who are familiar with the terms Republic of China (ROC) and People's Republic of China (PRC), there is no disagreement over the specific political entities to which they refer. On the other hand, the terms Taiwan and China are more commonly known, but people have differing opinions as to exactly what they encompass (although when used in context it is often easy to figure out to what they refer).

On the German Wikipedia there is no corresponding NPOV section in the Chinese naming conventions, as Susvolans notes below. However, it's also useful to note that there is not much consistency in their use of names. For instance, the German article, de:Taiwan, uses all of the terms, Taiwan, Republik China (Republic of China), and Republik China auf Taiwan (Republic of China on Taiwan) to refer to the political entity. The contents of the English version, Republic of China, uses Taiwan only in the geographical sense or when pointing to Taiwanese indepedence movements and uses Republic of China only to refer to the political entity. The German article, de:Flagge Taiwans, uses Taiwan in the title but Republik China in the contents. The English version of this article, Flag of the Republic of China, uses Republic of China very consistently and points out the controversy of using the word Taiwan to refer to the flag. With regard to articles refering the PRC, both China and Volksrepublik China (People's Republic of China) or simply VR China appear to be used in the article titles without much consistency (see Kategorie:China).

Taking into account the above examples, I believe NPOV section in the Chinese naming conventions has certainly helped to make the English version of the articles convey much better information about the real situation surrounding the PRC and ROC. However the German versions do have the advantage of being ambiguous. Ambiguity is not necessarily bad; for instance, even though the term Republic of China accurately points to a specific political entity, it also has connotations of sovereignty, which the PRC disapproves of and by that reason, some consider it POV. It is a difficult situation, especially when applied to article titles where there's no room for clarification. It may be useful to note that the Olympic Committee eschews the entire controversy altogether by using a whole new term, Chinese Taipei, to refer to Taiwan/ROC, but that's really not an option that Wikipedia can use. It's a choice between consistency and accuracy or recognizability with deliberate ambiguity, and in order to resolve this ongoing debate, I agree with MarkSweep that ArbCom should consider the applicability of the naming conventions in this situation.

Update to response above[edit]

Mababa writes:

However, let me respectfully disagree with the interpretation of the voting over statement 3. Let me suggest that, by assuming good faith, Umofomia's opinion and my opinion are no more valueable or less valuable than an anon user, unless we can demonstrate the anons were acting in bad faith. I believe, that vote is a strong 7:3 rough consensus until proven otherwise.

I did some more digging and actually it looks like the two anon votes that I cited above were made by the same exact IP address, 205.174.8.4 (talk · contribs): [190] and [191]. ...so at best, they should be only counted as one vote, not two. In addition, MarkSweep notes above that this IP address is in suspicion for being used in sockpuppetry.

Evidence presented by Susvolans[edit]

The "Political NPOV" is unknown to the German-language Wikipedia[edit]

Jimbo made his "absolute and non-negotiable" comment[192] about NPOV, which Instantnood claims the Chinese "Political NPOV" section is an integral part of, in the context of foreign-language Wikipedias. The German-language Wikipedia, with over 200,000 articles, is scarcely a lawless backwater; it has its own Chinese naming convention at de:Wikipedia:Namenskonventionen/Chinesisch; yet there is no "Political NPOV" section or anything like it. As far as the Taiwan versus ROC issue is concerned, the de:Taiwan article is about the country with just a couple of references to the "Republic of China" name; the de:Republik China ("Republic of China") article concerns itself with the 1912–1949 republic, with a short section about the KMT's flight to Taiwan at he end.

Instantnood's edit summaries[edit]

Instantnood rarely uses edit summaries (see Special:contributions/Instantnood). When they are used, they are often misleading.[193] Instantnood also uses summaries resembling administrative rollback, which is supposed to be reserved for reverting vandalism or clueless new users.[194][195][196][197][198]

The word "Taiwan" is widely used to include Quemoy and Matsu[edit]

See the list at User:Susvolans/List of sources referring to the Taiwan Strait islands as Taiwan .

Uncle Ed's Observation[edit]

  • This is mostly a case of trying to solve an editorial issue by persecuting a contributor.
    • Instantnood hasn't "acted perfectly", but he's generally responded with patience and courtesy. So I don't feel there is any case against him for not being a team player
    • Several users want to promote the view of the PRC that it alone is the only legitimate government of all of China. Instantnood (and I) oppose the use of Wikipedia to promote that view: either by article titles, category markers, or page content.
    • Wikipedia's role in controversies such as this should be limited to describing the point of view of each side rather than coming to any conclusions or endorsing any particular side.
  • What we need is NOT a ruling for or against Instantnood, but a clear statement of editorial policy touching on each of the ISSUES over which STC and IN have been wrangling.
  • I am quite obviously reframing the issue from an "arbitration between people" into a "discussion about Wikipedia editorial policy". -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:10, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Snowspinner[edit]

I'll be brief, because this evidence page is a sin against man and god.

Here is the body of discussion generated by Instantnood on this matter. I am submitting whole talk pages because, well, the point is the insane volume of discussion/votes/reconsiderations Instantnood has caused: Talk:List of Taiwan-related topics (by category) [199] [200] [201] [202]. Plus some archives. I haven't found the archives because my head hurts as much as yours does at this point.

This is not a content dispute - nobody is asking the arbcom to rule on what to call the two countries. Nobody is asking the arbcom to dictate how the NPOV policy applies to China. I don't even dispute Wgfinley's claim that Instantnood is right in this dispute. He may well be. I don't know. I don't care.

Consistant attempts at voting and reconsideration of a point after consensus has been reached is disruptive. It's disruptive if you're right. It's disruptive if you're wrong. It is, in many ways, worse if you're right because it serves to make your side look disruptive and trolling, and thus makes reasonable people side against you. In other words, it hurts the cause of doing the right thing. It's bad. It needs to be acted upon.

That's it. Instantnood is disruptive. Right or wrong, the way he handled the dispute caused disruption. Snowspinner 14:54, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}[edit]

<day1> <month>[edit]

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

<day2> <month>[edit]

  • <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=1138653876"