Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3/Workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

[edit] Wgfinley

Not sure if this is the correct place to note this but I have implemented another block against Instantnood of duration for two weeks for this series of edits clearly in violation of his parole and clearly edit warring:

This block is two weeks and may impair his ability to respond here regarding this case. The clerk or an arbitrator may wish to post a notice to him on his talk page how he can respond to issues in this case since he is under a block.

--Wgfinley 22:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huaiwei now also blocked for two weeks

Per my notice on his talk page:

You are blocked for two weeks for violation of your parole effective immediately. Specifically, causing disruptions in articles, reverting without discussion on talk pages and continued edit warring. The following edits in question are the cause for this block, will be posted on AN/I, your block log and in your current arbitration case. You can still contribute to your arbitration case by using your talk page.
Disruption of Wikiproject Airports
[7] [8] [9]
Continued barbs in edit summary in lieu of discussion on talk page
[10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]
I'm certain there is more for me to post here but this will do. Your continued edit warring, causing disturbances and methods of editing continue to violate your probation.

As always this has been noted in the block log on his probation page. --Wgfinley 13:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed temporary injunctions

[edit] Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:


[edit] Edit warring considered harmful

1) Edit warring is considered harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Copied. This is the main point of this RFAr. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 04:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Wikipedia does not recognize a status quo

1) In line with [[m:The Wrong Version, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, Jimbo's principle #3 at User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles, and the core concept of what a wiki is, Wikipedia does not recognize a status quo.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. This has been a repeated mantra of Instantnood, to restore article versions before edit wars broke out to "protect the status quo". See also: Wikipedia talk:Defending article quality SchmuckyTheCat 03:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Edit summaries

Statement(s) of principle
  • Editors are generally expected to provide appropriate edit summaries for their edits; failing to provide edit summaries for potentially contentious edits, or providing misleading edit summaries, is considered incivil and bad wikiquette.
  • When reverting, users are expected to give their reasons in the edit summaries.
Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. I wholesale copied that text from Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions SchmuckyTheCat 03:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Place names are inherently controversial

Names can sometimes be controversial because of perceived negative political connotations, historical conflicts or territorial disputes. However, Wikipedia does not take sides in a political controversy or determine what is something or someone's true, proper name. (text taken from Wikipedia:Naming conflict).

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. That Instantnood fails to recognize the controversy in renaming Chinese places is a core part of the dispute. Thus, it's important to state, as a principle, that unilateral changes, even the most minor spelling changes, to a places name in an article are inherently controversial and consensus should be sought before making such changes. SchmuckyTheCat 03:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Instantnood's continued edit wars

1) Instantnood has continued to revert war since the close of the last Arbitration case. Instantnood has purposefully re-ignited old feuds.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. I propose this as a fact, based on the evidence provided. SchmuckyTheCat 02:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Edit summaries

2) Instantnood continues to not provide useful edit summaries.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. Edit summaries are important, this has been a principle in many previous ArbCom cases. SchmuckyTheCat 02:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Entanglement of many editors

3) Instantnood edit wars with many other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. I showed this in the evidence section. It's an important statement to make: the number of people who he seeks edit wars with only grows with time and Instantnood sees these user conflicts as a conspiracy against him and Hong Kong. Other editors should not be entangled in constant dispute with him and hung out to dry when he is so obviously the core instigator of so many disputes. SchmuckyTheCat 02:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Consensus

4) Instantnood makes edits to articles that many people find conflict with. He makes these edits without, or even to the contrary of, consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. This is the basis for all the rename, naming convention, and other issues surrounding place names, ie "mainland China", Hong Kong with or without appending China, Republic of China vs Taiwan, etc. SchmuckyTheCat 02:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed remedies

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

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Preventing revert wars

1) Instantnood is prohibited from performing the same revert (other than simple vandalism) more than once. Instantnood must backup any revert with an explanation on the articles talk page with a rationale, preferably with a source. Any administrator should ban Instantnood from editing that article under the terms of Wikipedia:Probation

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. my proposed remedy, SchmuckyTheCat 03:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Useful edit summaries

1) Instantnood must make a clear and descriptive edit summary of any edit in the main article namespace. Instantnood is prohibited from marking any article edit as minor. Instantnood must not hide controversial edits within other edits with a non-controversial edit summary. Any administrator should ban Instantnood from editing that article under the terms of Wikipedia:Probation

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. The third sentence is is necessary to prevent things like this: [19]SchmuckyTheCat 03:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:
  1. If Arbitrators feel that this remedy is necessary, then Instantnood shall be reminded to make a further edit containing an edit summary if by accident he forgets to provide an edit summary in the first instance, to avoid him making excuses. enochlau (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • He was asked politely to use edit summaries an entire year ago(!!) and ArbCom made a statement about it in the last case. If he's still not doing it he doesn't need second chances - he's already on third or fourth chances on this issue. SchmuckyTheCat 16:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geographic renaming

1) Instantnood is prohibited from changing the name of any place, either in the title or the text of an article, without proposing the change for seven days in the articles talk page. Instantnood is similarly prohibited from changing the presentation of place names in articles that are lists. If there is any disagreement, or a lack of agreement, to the proposed change Instantnood is prohibited from making it. Any administrator should ban Instantnood from editing that article under the terms of Wikipedia:Probation

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
  1. That next to last sentence does not prohibit another editor from making the change after consensus is formed - it helps to ensure that discussion and consensus occurred. SchmuckyTheCat 03:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

[edit] Template

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Instantnood_3_Workshop_10a6.html"