Please use this page for all questions/comments on my advocacy for Instantnood.
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? — Insta ntnood 20:50, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. — Insta ntnood 05:52, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Discussions at Talk:China, Talk:People's Republic of China, Talk:Republic of China and Talk:Taiwan
Naming conventions (Chinese)Discussions
Some older onesEarly history of the naming conventionsAttempts to change the NPOV section |
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. — Insta ntnood 22:20, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Please also help watching User talk:Snowspinner#WP:RfAr Instantnood :-D — Insta ntnood 22:27, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
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)
I created a workshop page so that we can start piecing together evidence we plan on presenting. -- Wgfinley 15:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 20:37, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
Please take note of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2/Workshop#Motion_to_join_Huaiwei Fred Bauder 14:35, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Please use this page for all questions/comments on my advocacy for Instantnood.
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? — Insta ntnood 20:50, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. — Insta ntnood 05:52, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Discussions at Talk:China, Talk:People's Republic of China, Talk:Republic of China and Talk:Taiwan
Naming conventions (Chinese)Discussions
Some older onesEarly history of the naming conventionsAttempts to change the NPOV section |
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. — Insta ntnood 22:20, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Please also help watching User talk:Snowspinner#WP:RfAr Instantnood :-D — Insta ntnood 22:27, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
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)
I created a workshop page so that we can start piecing together evidence we plan on presenting. -- Wgfinley 15:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 20:37, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)
Please take note of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2/Workshop#Motion_to_join_Huaiwei Fred Bauder 14:35, July 27, 2005 (UTC)