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

Discussion from original requests[edit]

Updates to Arb requests[edit]

Response [1] SchmuckyTheCat 09:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the evidence and her/his latest response, I have responded at this section of the additional information to my statement. — Insta ntnood 11:09, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Mediator's intervention[edit]

I've got a pretty good discussion going between STC and IN, so I think this RFA may prove unnecessary. (No, I wasn't "asked to mediate"; I simply wandered into the fray. And, sorry, I don't know where I'm supposed to put this comment; please move it accordingly. Thanks. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:49, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Other commentary[edit]

I'm sorry, perhaps I'm misunderstanding your claim - are you asking the arbcom to rule on whether or not Instantnood is right about his preference in the naming dispute? Snowspinner 14:26, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think the statement is pretty clear -- we have ample documentation of the issues on the China NPOV Naming convention going back years. This is a policy issue and not a content issue because those who oppose the changes consistently cite either the Common Names Naming convention, rehash sides in this decades long dispute, or rehash sides in the policy itself going back years when doing so. The policy has been adopted and those wishing to revisit the policy again and again are preventing it from being implemented. --Wgfinley 18:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The naming convention certainly does not explicitly mandate use of "mainland China" or "ROC" that I can find, which leads me to believe that you are still arguing that Instantnood's interpretation of how to handle the NPOV policy is correct and other people are wrong. This is fine, but I hope the arbcom does not intend to rule on how best to navigate NPOV in a specific content dispute like this. Snowspinner 18:06, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hence we get to why I wasn't going to reply to you -- how about we wait until the case is accepted before we start arguments? --Wgfinley 21:41, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We agree with you that arbitration is necessary; however, what we are saying is that we want all of the outstanding issues settled, as any disruption — whosoever might be responsible for it — will invariably continue unless some formal settlement is reached. Obviously, there are issues here that are rather beyond the scope of consensus voting at the Wikipedia. Wally 21:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regardless, the arbcom doesn't really do content decisions to my knowledge. Snowspinner 18:06, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Again, let's wait for the Arbcom to accept the case, then we can make arguments, then the Arbcom can decide what it will make decisions on. --Wgfinley 21:44, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Request for Injunction[edit]

The vote page mentioned in jguk's filing on this case is currently on VfD, were the page to be deleted it could jeopardize the retrieval of evidence. We request that in order to preserve the evidence that the vote page [2] be protected from further editing. --Wgfinley 21:50, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Additional Requests for Movement/Injuntion[edit]

This case has been sitting here for quite a while now without being opened. I have urged my client to not engage in edit warring with the others involved. This certainly isn't stopping them from going through dozens of articles and POV pushing them and essentially ignoring the NPOV China Naming convention. It appears they have used this case to take advantage of the situation. As evidence, SchmuckyTheCat from 18 April alone:

Changing the content from "mainland China" to "China" or "PRC"[edit]

Moving articles between categories[edit]

I have dozens of more diffs from prior days that I can also bring forward, this is just a sample of one day of activity. My client is going to be criticized/have a case brought against him for actually asking people what they thought in a poll but this behavior of systematically making dozens of moves on a single day is not? We wish to counter against Schmucky's case, have this matter move forward and an injunction be issued prohibiting all parties from making changes to the naming of these articles, categories and creating of additional articles and categories until the case can be heard. --Wgfinley 18:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is this case going anywhere?[edit]

This case hase been open for six weeks now, and none of the arbitrators have followed it up. Where is it going? Susvolans (pigs can fly) 07:28, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)