User talk:Wgfinley\Instantnood Advocacy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please use this page for all questions/comments on my advocacy for Instantnood.

Contents

[edit] I need your help

Hello Wgfinley. A request for arbitration has been filed against me at WP:RFAr by Snowspinner as the AMA advocate for jguk. What do you think I can do? — Instantnood 20:50, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. First I have to declare that Wally approached me for my previous request for assistance (over the use of "mainland China"), and she/he told me she/he was going to accept this request to help dealing with the RFAr. I am not familiar with AMA procedures, but I believe assistance from you and from her/him will be equally important and helpful.
The conflict started when I joined Wikipedia and discovered quite a lot of entries, mainly to do with "mainland China" and "Republic of China", on Wikipedia were not NPOV, and were not sticking with the political NPOV section of the naming conventions. For contents, I fixed them, and for titles, I nominated them onto WP:RM, WP:CFD and WP:TFD. Some were passed but many are voted down. I took the advice from some of the proponents, and I tried to have it settled on the talk page of the naming conventions. It led to lengthy discussions running through February and March. Huaiwei, SchmuckyTheCat and jguk were some of the strong opponents of the moves. Participants of the discussions generally agreed that each page should be handled on a case-by-case basis. As the matter has to be solved, I said I was going to proceed to have polls on April 4 for "China"/"PRC" vs. "mainland China". The polls were created on April 9. Some considered it as a surprise, and complained the idea to have polls was not publicised before they were created, and jguk nominated the page to VFD.
Thanks again for your generous help. I do hope the matter can be solved some day in a peaceful way, and to put an end to the long dispute. Let me know if you need further details. — Instantnood 22:02, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
Just FYI, I'm a 'he', but I compliment my client on his thoroughness. :) Wally 22:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Instantnood Advocacy

I'd be happy to work with you, if you'd like, or if you'd prefer to keep on with the Netoholic case that's cool too (I agree that your first duty is to old clients and then to new ones). On the other hand, that case does seem to be wrapping up. Nonetheless, it's your call, and you know what everything requires of your time. If nothing else I'd be thrilled to have another advocate to bounce things off of — I can unfortunately be a bit shrill and over-the-top and make an impression I don't intend, etc., that careful review and copyediting might avoid. Whatever role you'd like to take is fine with me, but on any level I have no problem working as a team.

Also, make sure you fix your sig. on Instantnood's page — it comes up as your IP rather than your sign-on. Wally 22:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The signature in IP has been fixed. :-) — Instantnood 23:01, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed filing response

BTW, although you write in the proposed filing response that jguk's position is the common names naming conventions, I think it should be noted in the response that even the common names naming convention says the following:

In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading (For example: "tidal wave" would be a misleading title since these phenomena have nothing to do with tides), then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative (tsunami, for example). [1]

In the case of Taiwan vs. ROC, "Taiwan" is a name commonly used to refer to the ROC, but it is particularly misleading because it there are areas outside of Taiwan that are under ROC control. Likewise, in the China case, continuing to use "China" is misleading because it does not take into account the volatile issue between the PRC and ROC. In one respect, I do think that Instantnood has gone a bit overboard in pushing the use of "Mainland China" instead of "PRC", but at the very least, "China" should not be used according to even the common names naming convention. --Umofomia 01:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the proposed new title in the draft response could be improved. I see a real danger that it will be misunderstood as a content dispute, which is a direction that the ArbCom has refused to take. Rather, it should be emphasized that this case is about policy and specifically whether and how policy enforcement should be attempted. In other words, the ArbCom should, among other things, rule on: (1) whether Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) is to be considered valid policy without ruling on the contents and scope of this policy (as long as it's supported by community consensus and is compatible with more general policies of WP); (2) if it is policy, how it should be enforced. An alternative title might be something like Status and enforcement of project-specific policies.

I would stay away from any specific mention of China, PRC, ROC, etc., since certain parties may try to bring in specifics of the whole China/Taiwan debate. But this is emphatically not what's at stake here – rather, such discussions should take place, and have taken place, on the naming conventions talk page. What's at stake is whether we want to have unifying policies like the naming conventions (which, if done properly, would save us a lot of repetitive debates by providing a single venue for discussion). If so, they need to be enforced somehow. People have objected to polls, saying that "there are better ways" to achieve the same goals. Yet many different ways have been tried without success. The ArbCom should at least outline what they consider to be reasonable procedures in cases like this. --MarkSweep 22:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Filing Changes

I implemented the proposed changes on the user page take a look and let me know what you think. Also, if, after it is filed you would like to enjoin in the case feel free to do so there, I'll let you know when I've posted the response. Need to talk to Wally and Instantnood first. --Wgfinley 01:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My thoughts

I like the reply as is, but with the following recommended alteration:

While we concur that arbitration is likely the best forum for this dispute we do not agree to limitation of the scope of the case nor the current title of the case as filed. Instantnood (and his supporters) has (have) been engaged in a project to bring articles, categories, and lists into compliance with the NPOV China Naming conventions [2], as well as the acknowledged 'real-world' system of categorization (which, likewise, is designed to avoid the pitfalls of the China political and legal disputes). Instantnood has consistently and merely sought to bring many items into compliance with that policy by use of the votes cited in Jguk's filing; this was specifically designed to be on a case-by-case basis, as cursory reading of the poll results show.

Otherwise, sounds good to me. Let me know what you think of the above (excluding the formatting, which I may have bollocksed). Wally 03:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Also, the name thing

Let's not make a big stink over the name of the case, specifically. We are not (at least not directly and specifically) taking issue with jguk, and it is one party bringing the case rather than a general breakdown that leads both to seek this alternative. Moreover, the point of the case is not to get anyone kicked from the Wiki (as both sides agree) but rather to establish a precedent and settle outstanding issues. Therefore, it's basically a test case and Instantnood is the exemplar for his position, making the name at least somewhat appropriate. Plus, we don't want to make any stinks that we don't have to. Wally 03:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very true, especially the last point. Best to keep it simple. If I recall correctly, jguk and other have argued in the past (I'm paraphrasing here) that the naming conventions for China-related articles are in conflict both with the overall NPOV policy, and also with the policy to use common names. All these cases involve matters of content and policy making, i.e., agreeing on the naming conventions. I would find it important to make it very clear to the ArbCom that they are not asked to rule on the substance of these policies, which are generally arrived at by community consensus (except for NPOV, which is non-negotiable). Rather, they need to resolve, IMO, (1) a matter of precedence between policies (the general NPOV rule and the more specific NPOV-guideliens for China-related articles), and (2) the implementation of these policies. They specifically do not need to resolve any content issues or rule on the substance of various policies.
Polls may not be the best way to implement policy – polls aren't even the best way to set/amend policy, as the ArbCom is well aware (especially in light of the recent attempts to amend the arbitration guidelines themselves). At one point Xiong essentially appointed himself "dictator" (this was well-intentioned and in good faith, as far as I can tell), threatening to personally revert all efforts to change name usage in an article to something other than what the first author used. Needless to say, this would have been unworkable and met with strong opposition. I don't recall many revert wars. In fact, Instantnood has been very cautious, seeking debate where he could have just gone ahead and changed things. For example, several of the requested moves he posted on WP:RM had targets that were red links, i.e., a non-admin user could have made those moves without discussing them at all (risking offending others, of course). Instead, Instantnood has tried to reason with people and explain his proposals. His attempts were seen as disruptive and an RFC was started against him. (I wrote an outside view in which I argued that the debate was at its core a content debate. I now realize that was wrong – the debate was about policy, or rather enforcement, all along.) When Instantnood started the recent polls, the polls themselves were nominated for deletion (a questionable move, in my opinion), and people voted to delete saying that there are better ways to implement changes. Given that many different attempts have failed, I truly wish the ArbCom would sketch out guidelines that would allow us to break out of the current stalemate one way or the other. --MarkSweep 04:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The name of the case isn't that huge of a deal, I was just concerned about the case becoming "Instantnood" and didn't think it was very fair. I also agree we aren't out to discredit Jguk so much as point out that the way he and his supporters are handling the issue is skirting around NPOV policy. That's what I tried to bring out in the diffs I cited.

--Wgfinley 04:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Made changes as per suggestions. --Wgfinley 04:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Allow me to just point out that the term "supporters" may need to be clearly quantified if there is a need to expand this discussion beyond "Instantnood vs Jguk". I read the above statement, and I started wondering if you guys are suggesting that anyone who opposes any of Instantnood's moves are inherently Jguk's supporters. That is quite far from the truth. There are many of us between the spectrum of those supporting all moves, and those opposing all of them, as is obvious in the wide range of discussions going on across pages. Not all those who oppose the moves are "skirting NPOV policy", given intense debates surrounding the NPOV of the convention as well. I do hope a more comprehensive look at discussions can be made before making sweeping comments implicating a lot more people then it should. Thanks! --Huaiwei 10:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If the claim is that this is to a large extent about precedence and enforcement of policies, then it may be better to not paint this as a polarized debate between two fractions. Granted, I believe there are two vocal parties on opposite sides of this debate, but Huaiwei is right that there are intermediate positions as well. However, I'd like to stress again that this is not about which moves should be carried out. I don't think the ArbCom would ever consider deciding on which articles should be renamed. Rather, this is about what steps the community can take to ensure that global decisions (naming conventions) arrived at by consensus are not blocked locally (when deciding what title to use for a specific article), or what to do when local decisions run counter to more encompassing principles. For illustrating this particular kind of problem, it's sufficient to have two parties that disagree. The precise nature and extent of the disagreement is not really that important. --MarkSweep 13:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Take myself for example, someone who seems to keep getting entangled in the above debates, and quite a vocal one at that. I disagree with quite a number of moves by Instantnood, but it does not mean I oppose all of them, or I support all moves by "the opposing faction", if any. For eg, I do not oppose the usage of the term "ROC" over that of "Taiwan", and I am open to any means of interpretation of the term "China", but I am most vocal against the use of the term "Mainland China" in place of the PRC.
What does this illustrate? That there is are "two factions" is trivalising the issue into a "pro-convention" and "anti-convention" camp which by the way it is being presented, unfairly tips the scales in favour of one of these supposed "camps", based on an allergation that they are "skirting NPOV". I have seen User:Jiang opposing some moves proposed by Instantnood, without contradicting the convention, because the convention (by my interpretation) does not dictate which terms should be used in all situations, many of which are controversial and not clear cut. Instantnood interprets the same convention differently. Should the ArbCom rule on its interpretation, or its enforcement? Or both?--Huaiwei 14:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think that while the "supporters" term in still, there was only one phrase in the filing that bugged me a bit after I reread it and that was about supporters attempting to undermine the convention. Instead of paint it as something deliberate (which may or may not be true in some cases but certainly not all) I changed the wording that these attempts "have had the effect of undermining" the convention. I think that significantly changes the meaning of the sentence. Again, our goal is to get some direction on how these types of disputes are handled -- we certainly are of the opinion that should include bringing all of the articles into compliance and then letting consensus building continue on the NPOV China Naming convention. --Wgfinley 14:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Proposed Filing Response

Thanks a lot for the effort you and Wally have paid. The current one is fine. :-D Let me know at any time if there's anything come up in your mind, or further information that you want to know. By the way, you may be interested to take a look at User:Instantnood/RFAr. — Instantnood 05:52, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

I am watching quite close to the edits by SchmuckyTheCat and is updating the page frequently, whenever there's a need to do so. By the way, you may also be interested to take a look of the followings:
 

[edit] Discussions at Talk:China, Talk:People's Republic of China, Talk:Republic of China and Talk:Taiwan

[edit] Naming conventions (Chinese)

[edit] Discussions

[edit] Some older ones

[edit] Early history of the naming conventions

[edit] Attempts to change the NPOV section
  — Instantnood 07:12, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
See also the position of jguk at Talk:Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China#Move request and Category talk:Airports of the People's Republic of China#CfD discussion. — Instantnood 07:29, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching people and invite them to comment and to provide information. Refdoc said something at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood/Evidence just now, and you may be interested to hearing from her/him. — Instantnood 22:20, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Please also help watching User talk:Snowspinner#WP:RfAr Instantnood :-D — Instantnood 22:27, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Schmucky Evidence Page

Be careful on that evidence page that Schmucky started [3], we shouldn't do any responses there because a) the case hasn't been accepted for evidence yet and b) that likely won't be the right place to put it, When (and if, although it certainly appears to be "when") the case gets accepted we can start putting evidence there.

I have been monitoring the RFAr page and responded to a comment Snowspinner made on our filing[4], Wally chimed in over there as well. --Wgfinley 22:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence Workshop

I created a workshop page so that we can start piecing together evidence we plan on presenting. --Wgfinley 15:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meeting and e-mail

I've proposed to Instantnood that we have an IRC meeting to discuss the case and plan out our actions. What channel we use I don't have any particular druthers; however the timing is important. I'm in US Eastern, and with Daylight Savings' I think that makes me UTC -4 at the moment. Obviously, we need to work out the time bit as best we can, and agree on a day well in advance. However, the sooner the better.

Also, we should start communicating over e-mail, as there are some issues and comments that I have that I would rather not be tossed around on talk pages. Mine is Paintball5320@aol.com, so drop me a note and include who you are in the subject line. The most important issue I want to work out is diffusion of responsibility — you and I probably ought to divide responsibility for certain issues in this case and focus on them individually, so we're not tripping over each others' feet. Wally 16:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Note on Instantnood's advocacy

Please correct me if I am wrong. In my understanding, jguk and Schmucky requested for arbitration to stop the so-called disrupting behavior but did not ask Arbcoms to determine how the contents of the Wikipedia should be edited.

It is in your statement "Instantnood's proposed changes should go forward," your advocacy proclaimed your intention to help your client to bring his proposals into reality (even facing strong opposition from the majority) as the result of the arbitration. Now you tell me, "We didn't bring this to arbitration" and also "it's not our intention to be imbroiding Arbcoms into the side (sic) of Instanthood." I wonder if I have I missed something. Or perhaps I misunderstood your statement?

I have no experience on the arbitration in Wikipedia and I am not sure how should this be processed, but please make the distinction between advocating for an act out of good faith and advocating for the result of the editing war. You are advocating for your client's act, not his ultimate result on the content which should be outside of the arbitration debate, I think. Wikipedia's contents are edited by contributers, not by the result of arbitration.--Mababa 01:45, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your advise to ignore my question

First of all, it is utterly not true that I have been constantly questioning toward Instantnood. That is a distortion of the truth. I only question Instantnood when he makes questionable statements, such as when he claims that there is consensus endorsing his proposal on Taiwan-related articles. I am not an prosecuter, but actually an prosecuted. Instantnood has constantly pressing and questioning, debating on Taiwan-related articles. Please check the record yourself.

Instantnood does not owe me anything. However, he owes every who participated his vote a clean and unbiased voting regulation. Looking into his response, he seems evading his responsibility to correct the voting rule, and you also endorsed this practice by advising him to ignore other people's concern over the fairness of the vote he conducted.

And the rest of my response here. --Mababa 04:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Wgfinley -- I don't know how much clearer I can make this so let me try again. Your position is that the case is in arbitration and I respectfully agree, that a pending arbitration case is a pending arbitration case. However, You continue to distort the reality accusing me tring to argue this issue via multiple postings on discussion pages, my page, and virtually anywhere else you can find it. I don't find your actions to be doing anything to build a consensus and quite frankly I think you're just out to antagonize me.

I totally do not understand your logic to intruding my talk page at all. Apparently you have confused the voting rule debate with the arbitration case between your client and jguk and SchmuckyTheCat. Please help me understand this, is the debate over a Instantnood imposed simple majority voting rule which deviated from the Wikiepdia's rough consensus voting rule has anything to do with the pending arbitration? Is this debate touches your client's case at all? Or perhaps you have already become Instantnood's serrogate before anyone bring this voting rule case for mediation or arbitration. Please respond and show me the logic.

If you feel strongly about that the voting rule should be part of the arbitration case, feel free to contact Snowspinner about various positions you would like to see included favoring Instantnood. Be my guest!!! I'm sure he will be happy to consider your suggestions.

Confusing your client's arbitration case with the voting rule debate is not only at all unuseful but also unlogical. Finally, if you want to get Arbicoms involved into editing/content war, be my guest and I fully repect your position. I personally believe that it is the contributers makes the policy, not the consensus. No matter how long that obsolete consensus stays there, the verdict has been done through poll already. Even if that consensus do not specify how to be implemented in detail, as you might have already noticed. I know you don't agree, so please, you don't have to state it again. As to the voting rule debate, let's urge your client go forward, let Instantnood's position be heard in the voting page, and go forward from there. Instantnood has a good reputation so far to guard, and he knows what would serve his position best. On the other hand, you are his advocate, you knows whether neglecting people's question serves your client best.--Mababa 04:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Committee case opening

The Arbitration request now entitled Instantnood, et al. has been accepted. Please bring evidence for your client to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al./Evidence. Thank you. -- Grunt   ҈  20:37, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

[edit] Motion

Please take note of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2/Workshop#Motion_to_join_Huaiwei Fred Bauder 14:35, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/g/f/User_talk%7EWgfinley_Instantnood_Advocacy_de93.html"