User talk:Wally/Instantnood advocacy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is for all past, present and future enquiries or statements regarding my representation of User:Instantnood. For general comments or requests for assistance, please see here. For issues relating to the User:El_C case, please see here. Wally

Contents

[edit] Re: AMA Request for Assistance

Thanks. It has been listed on RfC as well. But I don't know if there's any people came in and joined the discussions from the link at WP:RFC#Article content disputes. — Instantnood 13:56, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hello Wally. A request for arbitration has been filed against me at WP:RFAr by Snowspinner as the AMA advocate for jguk. I would like to request for assistance, and to have a representative to help me in compiling compelling evidence for the arbitration. Can you give me a hand? — Instantnood 20:37, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFAr

First I have to thank you for your assistance.

The conflict started when I joined Wikipedia, and discovered quite a lot of articles are not NPOV, and do not stick with the political NPOV section of the naming conventions, mainly to do with "mainland China" and "Republic of China". For contents, I fixed them. For titles of pages, I proceeded to WP:RM, WP:CFD and WP:TFD. Some were passed, but many were voted down. I took the advice from some of the proponents, and try to have these pages first handled at the talk page of naming conventions. It led to lengthy debates running through February and March. Huaiwei, SchmuckyTheCat and jguk were some of the strong opponents of the moves. It was agreed upon during the discussions 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.

I would like to hear your opinion on the merits and drawbacks of accept arbitration to conclude the situation, before I make the decision.

If you accept my request for assistance, I will be willing to work with you, and will answer all queries completely and truthfully. I always stay civil in all my edits and all discussions I join. I will refrain to edit the pages in contention, given that all parties do not make further controversial edit that is in contradiction with the current set of naming conventions. Thanks again for your help. — Instantnood 21:33, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, Wgfinley, who responded to AsylumInmate's appeal for me, has also shown his interest to assist me over this matter. I am not familiar with AMA procedures, but I believe assistance from you and from him will be equally important and helpful. — Instantnood 22:02, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contact from Instantnood

Wally -- Instantnood has also contacted me about being his advocate. I have asked him to clarify who he would wish to serve but am not opposed to working together with you if he would like. Given case loads though (I currently have Netoholic in arb right now) would probably be better for one or the other of us to do it. Let me know.

BTW, left a message with the coordinator about a meeting, I would like to have one soon. --Wgfinley 22:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Third-party opinion

Hi Wally, I noticed you decided to take up the matter regarding Instantnood, so I thought you might like a third-party opinion on the matter. I believe Instantnood has been a well-intentioned editor and has not gone against the letter of Wikipedia policies, although on many occassions I do think that he has stretched the spirit of them.

Here is the situation as I see it:

After justification from Instantnood that he was only trying to enforce the naming conventions in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese), opponents attempted to get the naming conventions changed. There was much debate, but in the end, changes were basically voted down or were basically close to 50/50 divided. The only thing that seemed to be agreed upon was that the situation is complicated and moves should be done on a case-by-case basis as evidenced by this explicit conversation between Instantnood and Huaiwei, one of the opponents: Huaiwei, Instantnood.

In light of this agreement, Instantnood proceeded to do individual polls on each article. Granted, the 35 (according to the arbitration page; this number seems a bit high, though I haven't counted it myself) simultaneous polls he opened up probably wasn't the smartest way to do this, and it has even gotten on my nerves a bit, even though I'm a supporter of most of them. I myself doubt the polls will do any good either since they always end up nearly 50/50 divided. However, now the opponents are using this as evidence that Instantnood is trying to subvert procedure, and do not even acknowledge anymore the agreement that the pages were to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

In any case, I'm getting somewhat sick of this constant bickering. I've tried to do some minor mediation between Instantnood and his opponents by having them compromise whenever possible, but any truce between them have been only temporary. I'm glad you decided to take up this case. Good luck! --Umofomia 22:45, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and counted and it actually is 34, so I guess the arbitration page was only slightly off. There are currently 9 in Taiwan vs. ROC and 25 in China or PRC vs. mainland China. --Umofomia 23:24, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Pertaining to the supposed agreement over the case-by-case threatment, perhaps my response here may give some clues as to why it might turn out not to be an "agreement" afterall. Instantnood interprets it as a case-by-base process which fully complies with the current naming conventions. I interprets it as a process made neccesary because the same convention is under content dispute, and that even in its current state, has never stated that it should be enforced universaly and without question, be it as text in articles, as title names, or category names. ie, he sees it as an extension of the current convention. I see it as a means to solve disagreements independent of content disputes in the current convention.--Huaiwei 16:07, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I essentially agree with everything Umofomia has said. Instantnood did not start these polls out of the blue. I believe that he/she ("he" henceforth) has been acting in good faith trying to implement Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). He has done so in a non-disruptive, but perhaps not the most effective manner. I first noticed his attempts several weeks ago when he requested several moves en bloc at WP:RM (the procedure for requested moves has since changed). The block moves met with some opposition and several people (myself included, IIRC) pointed out to him that it would be better to treat all requested moves individually, because it may be difficult to reach overall consensus on a large number of items. After some interlude concerning the naming conventions themselves, Instantnood recently went back to creating the polls about the individual articles as had been previously suggested. As far as I'm concerned, this is the first time we're even getting to the core of the issue – most previous attempts were flawed procedurally. Instantnood's critics have been quite harsh: people have called him an "annoying gnat" and accused him of disrupting WP when he proposed moves on WP:RM exactly according to procedure, there has been the inevitable comparison to Nazis, etc. Some people even complained about Instantnood notifying potentially interested parties on their talk pages of the fact that the polls had been created.
I'm repeating myself here, but IMHO what's at the heart of the debate is a lack of separation between policy making and policy implementation. The relevant policy in this case are the naming conventions for China-related articles. These conventions appear to be supported by community consensus and should not even require separate polls to allow them to be implemented. Instantnood and others have been trying to direct the debate in a direction where it is more about the applicability of the naming conventions, whereas some of his opponents do not appear to be willing or able to engage in this debate, choosing to debate matters of law (the naming conventions themselves) rather than matters of fact or issues of interpretation in arguably inappropriate places. The net result is an ongoing sequence of similar debates that quickly derail without ever reaching a clear consensus. This despite the fact that a consensus on the naming conventions does exist.
While the ArbCom was specifically not asked to rule on the naming conventions, I would very much like to hear their opinion on the legal and procedural status of naming conventions in general. Given that naming conventions exist, if and how should they be implemented? Is it real worth everyone's time to engage in the same kind of debate over and over again, every single time a proposed move comes up? Or should there rather be a single locus of debate, namly concentrating on the conventions themselves, which could then be implemented with minimal or no debate? I think an opinion on this matter would be useful for all of WP beyond this isolated case. --MarkSweep 01:18, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Allow me to speak up here, considering some of the indirect references to "opponents" was in reference to me.
From the way I see it, this case has become a blurring behind two key debates: That over the use of the term "Taiwan", and that of "Mainland China." The two are loosely related, although the main debates surrounding their usage was quite distinct. While both concerns the forumlation and inplementation of the converntion in question, lumping the two together suggests similar motives, attitudes, conduct, and even a coordination of efforts between the two to arrive at a single aim.
This issue is not just about one party trying to enforce a convention, and another opposing it. The suggestion that a "consensus on the naming conventions" exists was directly under dispute, which members of both parties have actually recognised, to the point that some have even declared that the convention is no longer a document worthy to be enforced. I remember early on in the disputes, that I have even called on all to avoid renaming anything until the discussions over the convention can reach a reasonable level of concensus. Unfortunately, both parties has gradually failed to do so, initially with "covert" moves, which eventially led to outright action without warning. I am still detecting signs of "covert" moves, which includes actions by Instantnood, directly contradicting MarkSweep's comments that he was "outright" and "responsible". For everyone of his announced moves, he made a few more without any notice, and it was the later which usually degenerates into revert wars which he quite naturally avoids mention.
In fact, seen from the other angle, I would even argue, that the insistance in trying to enforce the covention in its current form at all costs is sending the signal that it discourages efforts by others to put forth their views and to improve on it. Not all calls for improvement are neccesarily disruptive. Can we band them all together and assume they are so?
That being said, I does not mean I agree that all charges laid against Instantnood are valid. He is right in asking for comments before making controversial moves, but my issue with him, is that he did not do this for all similar edits. MarkSweep's comment, that "some people even complained about Instantnood notifying potentially interested parties on their talk pages of the fact that the polls had been created," would be inclusive of me as one of the main complainants, but it does not mean I agree that he is disrupting WP. What I do call for, however, is accountability in his actions. If the convention is supposedly non-controversial and represents concensus, then why the need for covert action to enforce them?
Presently, I do wonder what the Arbcom is supposed to be judging on, or even what this entire process aims to do. In fact even as I am writing this, I am wondering just what issues are under contention too. I would hope to see this sorted out, before we end up back in square one again.--Huaiwei 15:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I come to contribute my humble opinion that I have posted in the discussion page[1]. Voting once on Taiwan-related articles is okay. Disregarding the previous voting result and moving forward to initiate a second round of vote is disturbing. Was there a consensus supporting instantnood to initiate a second round of votes?

Using the naming convention as the justification for the first round of votes for MASSIVE moves is marginally acceptable, but the result being voted down should have already prompted Instantnood to ponder on the neutrality of the convention, instead of prompted him to initiate repetitive voting over and over again. The contradictory result to the naming convention is a strong indication telling the participants that the current convention has ignored a POV which is held by a significant number of the Wikipedian. It also suggests modification on the naming convention to a better neutral point. IMHO, Instantnood failed to understand this. There goes my two cents.--Mababa 05:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---- I very much agree with Umofomia 22:45, 10 Apr 2005 above. Instantnood may not always have done what was optimal for Wikipedia, but he seemed to have honest intentions. Conversely, I found his opponents' arguments often disingenuous or even insulting, such as

  • Mababa's and Huaiwei's far-fetched accusations of denigrating "the island of Qingmoy and Matsu" [2].
  • SchmuckyTheCat's insults [3]
  • 160.39.195.88 (talk · contribs)'s contributions (many of which reverts), including his call to ban Instantnood [4].

I have so far abstained from voting (primarily because I was confused in the labyrinth of pages about this issue), but I feel I have to speak up for someone who has remained remarkably patient and polite in the face of all this. — Sebastian (T) 08:39, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not remember ever commenting on Qingmoy and Matsu?--Huaiwei 09:30, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK I have to correct myself. On second glance you probably meant that he was dismissive of Taiwan. However, that doesn't change my impression: Instantnood has consistently proven that he does care about Taiwan, and reproaching him for not caring can not be called other than disingenuous. — Sebastian (T) 08:39, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
               What do you mean by saying "who cares"? You mean: who cares about the island of Qingmoy and Matsu just like who cares about HK anyway? or you mean who cares about Taiwan just like who cares about HK anyway? [...] Mababa 04:04, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
               Dear Instantnood. I have to confess that your robotical response by repeating your previous answer is really disturbing and would definately not help the discussion move forward. If next time you keep on this habit, I will have to response you in the same way you response me.Mababa 05:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
               (response to Mababa's comment at 05:23, 29 Mar 2005) I must say that Instantnoods' usage of words "who cares" just speaks volumes on how dismissive he is in areas he doesnt happen to share much passion about, yet reacts in overwelming emotion and resolve in all issues directly relevant to his hometown. If I were to be a Taiwanese, I would be absolutely offended. Not a good reflection for a wikipedian who should be placing knowledge over personal interests.--Huaiwei 11:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see what you are getting at. But in actual fact, that is probably a strong case against Instantnood then the other way round. If Instantnood declares that he was disinterested in the Taiwan issue, and yet was one of the biggest enforcers of the convention on Taiwan, that perhaps explains why he seems to think it unnecesary to engage in discussions over the interpretation and reforumulation of the existing convention, the very thing others such as Mababa are calling for. Someone who shows indifference to the issue at hand, fails to demonstrate appreciation of diversive views, and has only shown interest in enforcing a controversial convention naturally comes underfire by those who do.--Huaiwei 11:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reviewed Case

Hey Wally, I had a chance to look at the case now. It appears the case Schmucky brought (which was impossible to follow, I couldn't find one diff he pesented) is going to be merged with the one Jguk is bringing. That one has four Arbcom votes to accept last I checked so that should be going forward. Snowspinner is going to be advocating for Jguk so I'm certain he will submit a ton of evidence when the case is accepted.

I think we have a good case on this as I believe that Instantnood is only trying to enforce the adopted naming conventions and those opposed to the naming conventions are making life hell for him. He's always been polite from everything I've seen and it is his opponents who are getting upset, yet he never seems to get frazzled. I would be happy to coordinate efforts with you on this case as he is certain to be a great client.

Look me up on IRC (I'm in there a lot) or on AIM, I am progboatguy72 on there. If you use another messenger let me know, I pretty much use them all but am trying to consolidate to AIM wherever I can (AIM has the best Mac support). Look me up so we can discuss strategy.

The first thing I want to get at is the title of the case, I don't believe the case should be titled "Instanthood" but "Jguk & SchmuckytheCat v. Instanthood" and would want to move to get that changed quickly. --Wgfinley 23:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just completed a proposed response to the filing[5]. Let me know what you think as I would like to get it filed right away. --Wgfinley 00:38, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey Wally, I included the changes you suggested and am in agreement (I think I altered a word or two here and there) and have updated the filing with the changes. I'm on right now obviously, if you want to catch up with me on IRC I am there. --Wgfinley 04:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We were in agreement on the content of the filing so I have gone ahead and posted it. If there's anything else that needs to be altered on it let me know. Look forward to talking to you soon. --Wgfinley 05:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Proposed Filing Response

Thanks a lot for the effort you and Wgfinley have paid.  :-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 05:53, 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 07:13, 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 22:19, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Please also help watching User talk:Snowspinner#WP:RfAr Instantnood :-D — Instantnood 22:28, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Note on Instantnood's advocacy

Thank you for your prompt response on my note. I am certain that your position, as the advocate for Instantnood, do not require information other than new information which you are not awared of. You also states "My job is to defend my client and not to get to the bottom of anything."

However, as one Wikipedian deeply concerns the result of the result of the voting war initiated by Instantnood, I wonder if it is appropriate for you and Wgfinley to proclaim that you would like to take the advantage of this arbitration opportunity to realize Instantnood's unilaternal interpretaion of the Naming convention against the majority voters who oppose his massive proposals, in the Instantnood's advocacy statement[6].

I believe this intention obviously contradicts with your statement: not to get to the bottom of anythign. IMHO, this is interfering the Wikipedia NPOV process, embroiding Arbcoms into the side of Instantnood's editing war, and this is far beyond the job as an advocate. This being said, I still appreciate your comment. I wish Instantnood good luck and I would be looking forward to a satisfying result from this arbitration.--Mababa 00:10, 14 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] My view

In general, I'm not sure what to make of the whole situation. I tend to think that Instantnood has probably been overzealous, but not in an especially disruptive way, and I am still rather uncertain why this has gone to arbitration. My basic position on this is puzzlement - this is a content dispute, one which is not over any kind of overt POV pushing, and one which has not been characterized by a particularly large degree of rudeness. I basically think that there's nothing in particular to arbitrate here. john k 23:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Motion

Please take note of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2/Workshop#Motion_to_join_Huaiwei Fred Bauder 14:33, July 27, 2005 (UTC)