Case Opened on June 30, 2005 19:41 (UTC)
Case Closed on 19:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Case is a re-opening of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al.
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.
Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.
Prior case is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al. (was closed without any action taken).
ArbCom, please re-open the closed case against Instantnood for the following reasons:
Making Instantnood aware I've asked to re-open. [5]
If not, then explain why that would be fruitless
The existing case is already overwhelming.
Since the closing of it, Instantnood has made thousands of edits. At least 80% of which are marked as minor edit. I'm guessing of the last 2000 edits, less than 50 have an edit summary. Many of the minor edits include renaming China and Taiwan to his preferred versions - exactly what there was no consensus to do in his massive voting proposals that started the last arbcom case. Marking controversial edits as minor with no editing summary is clearly non-constructive towards building an encyclopedia.
If I might be indulged, this is absolutely ridiculous. The fact that the ArbCom made a procedural error should not be sufficient reason to put Instantnood under arbitration again barely two weeks after the first issue was concluded. Furthermore, the continued and continuing personal attacks against Instantnood by Schmucky — you can see below for its translation from Cantonese — absolutely pulverize any moral grounding he might have for bringing this case. Obviously he's attempted nothing further in any other area of dispute resolution since this has occured. I implore the ArbCom not to validate the intimidation levied against Instantnood and to let this issue remain concluded or, failing that, at least refer it to mediation before adjudicating it again, so at least a second hearing will have something new to show. Wally 21:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I encourage this case to be taken up - the old case should never have been closed at all, both procedurally and factually. Instantnood is a clear problem. We need to deal with it. Snowspinner June 30, 2005 17:57 (UTC)
If this is not re-opened, I would like to hear the ArbCom's opinions on what to do on the entire Mainland China matter. I'm asking because Category:Economy of mainland China appeared on WP:CFD today, with Schmucky proposing a rename and Instantnood opposing that. I hope this doesn't mean we're back at square one? R adiant _>|< 23:18, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Tell me what's this: 唔屌到你唔好以為自己好撚型,屌那星! 含家呤 (Don't think you're damn smart if I don't fuck you. Fuck that star. Go to hell your entire family) I found this threatening statment in Instatnood's talk page.
Obviously, someone has made serious insult plus personal attack before the arbitration. In fact, SchmuckyTheCat used to write indecently weird phrases like 猶太陰莖貓 (Jewish Penis Cat) in his (I use "his" because he's got a penis as he claims) user page, and for many times I see he creates some users' pages by adding a full stop. I don't think that's a patent accident at all. Does it violate some rules of wikipedia? I'm new to here, and I know little about Wikipedia's policy. But I would feel terribly annoyed if someone attempted to "deflower" my user page -- that's just like rape, to be honest. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That should be adopted from songs of Lazy Mutha Fucka, I suppose. Don't tell me they're singing for the Church. By the way, what do you mean by "nearly a Godwin"? Please elaborate. :-D
PS I see the meaning of Schmuck. It's not weird, it's not indecent--its vulgar. :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 21:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And yet again I choose to put myself in this case so that people can see what is being commonly mistaken. I prsonally believe that Education in Taiwan should NOT be there. Taiwan = Taiwan island. It does NOT include the islands that currently under the jurisdiction of the RoC government. (Title is misleading.) And I also agree that if something does not apply to Hong Kong and Macau, it should not be titled with PRC, seeing that the term mainland China more closely describes it. It's NOT about the fact that the political entity. Sure, if Taiwan announces its independence, then fine, I am OK with keeping articles regarding Taiwan where they are. But people are using Common Names policy to rebuff NPOV.
We have GOT to make sure that the NPOV policy must override Common Names policy. We need to make sure that things are factually correct, too. I hereby sincerely request ArbCom to look at each piece of evidence separately, as these articles must be examined on a case-by-case basis and because of the current political issues, it is currently impossible to uniform all articles of these topics. Thank you. -- Penwhale 1 July 2005 13:27 (UTC)
By the way, this does NOT state that I suggest an overall move. I'm stating that some of the evidence provided by SchmuckyTheCat above, here and here (particularly on the top few lines), in an attempt to prove that Instantnood was trying to disrupt; these edits are technically correct and should not be used against him. I would have made the same edits in those two links. -- Penwhale
SchmuckyTheCat 1 July 2005 23:18 (UTC)
The previous ArbCom case was not opened as a case against any single user, but a case that several users are involved. User:SchmuckyTheCat and his advocate User:Snowspinner expressed in their statemen ts above that they were requesting to reopen the case. They did not request to have a new case. Therefore this case should not be considered a case against me, but rather, as a continuation of the previous case, a case with several parties involved. In this regard I would like to request the Arbitration Committee to change the title of the case to better reflect its nature as a continuation. Further, as this case is a continuation, the subject matter of the case should remain unchanged. Any other disputed issues unrelated to the previous case, if there is any, should not be included. Statements and evidence presented by myself and by my advocates on my behalf in the previous case remain valid and applicable. — Insta ntnood July 4, 2005 19:34 (UTC)
I am submitting a statement to the effect of factual and technical information pertaining to this argument. While Hong Kong, Macau, and China, and debateably Taiwan are under the national government of the People's Republic of China, the extent to which they co-operate is questionable. Therefore, categories like Category:Economy of Hong Kong, Category:Economy of Taiwan, et al exist to differentiate the information and to make it clear that subjects such as the Hong Kong Harbour Business Forum is not related to Taiwan, and would not make sense to be lumped together into some giant, all-encompassing category.
Furthermore, there is no nation or language that refers to the People's Republic of China as "mainland China". If anything, it is casual shorthand. It has no established useage, unlike say Metropolitan France. Since it is not properly defined (Can we include Hong Kong and Macau, but not Taiwan?, etc.) it exists outside of the realm of what is generally considered appropriate for encyclopaedias, as we should attempt to be as specific as possible with information.
To speak of the situation between SchmuckytheCat and Instantnood, I find personally that this should be less an argument of "who said what" and instead go beyond petty politics into what the real issue is: Whether the PR China should be referred to as mainland China (which is, some could argue, a uniquely Hong Kong/Macau/Taiwan point of view) or the People's Republic of China. To use my example about Metropolitan France again, the category for articles pertaining to France is Category:xx of France, and not Category:xx of Metropolitan France. Why should China be any different? Páll (Die pienk olifant) 21:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
1) Wikipedia has adopted a number of policies and guidelines, see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. While policies are binding on Wikipedia users, guidelines are not, though they should be applied in most cases. This includes Naming conventions, in this case Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese).
2) Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Political_NPOV) provides, in pertinent part:
Wikipedia entries should avoid taking sides on controversial sovereignty issues such as the status of Taiwan and Tibet. Although the United Nations and most sovereign states in the world have recognized the People's Republic of China as the sole government of China, Wikipedia should reflect the neutral reality and not use the term "China" to coincide with any particular state or government. In particular, the word "China" (in a political, diplomatic or national sense refering to current affairs) should not be used to be synonymously with areas under the current administration (government) of the People's Republic of China i.e. (geographically) within Mainland China. (Historical and such 'old-name' Geographic and political references before 1945— 1947 excepted.)
As a general rule of thumb, the official political terms "People's Republic of China" or "PRC" and "Republic of China" or "ROC" should be used in political contexts (that is, to describe the existing regimes or governments) rather than the imprecise and politically charged terms "China" and "Taiwan." For example, " Hu Jintao is the President of the People's Republic of China" is preferred over "Hu Jintao is the President of China." Likewise, one should write "one must be an ROC citizen to vote in the ROC presidential election" as opposed to "one must be a Taiwanese citizen to vote in the Taiwanese presidential election."
Taiwan should not be described either as an independent nation or as a part of the People's Republic of China. Wikipedia should merely state the de facto situation that Taiwan is governed by an indepedent government/state/regime called the "Republic of China." When it is necessary to describe the political status of Taiwan, special note should be made of Taiwan's complex position. Thus, the term "Taiwan" should only be used when referring to the island itself. Furthermore, the term "province of Taiwan" can be offensive and should only be used when attributed to its source or referring specifically to the existing division under the ROC (for example, " James Soong was the only popularly elected governor of Taiwan Province").
The term "mainland China" is a term which can be used when a comparison is to be made with Taiwan for non-political purposes. Hong Kong and Macau are generally not considered part of Mainland China, though under the jurisdiction of the PRC. Thus, it is more appropriate to write "many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting mainland China" than "many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting China" as the latter could imply that Hong Kong and Taiwan are not part of China.
3) A guideline such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) can be changed by the Wikipedia community, see how policies are decided. This policy provides for consensus decision-making by those users who are familiar with the matter, in this case, regular editors of Chinese-related topics.
4) An existing guideline such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) remains in full force and effect until it is changed in conformity with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#How are policies decided?,
5) All Wikipedia policies, guidelines and naming conventions should be applied in a thoughtful way appropriate to the circumstances of the situation. Rote, mechanical application of a naming convention is more likely to be disruptive than productive.
6) Wikipedia uses categories as an aid to the reader. They are not intended to be information in themselves, but are useful in finding information. As applied to this case, Literature of Hong Kong can appropriately be in both the category "Literature of Hong Kong" and "Literature of China" despite the possibility that some part of the literature of Hong Kong may not be included within the literature of China (perhaps a domestic sketch of an English household living in Hong Kong).
7) A Wikipedia user's behavior must be considered in the context of the other editors editing in the same area. A user should not be singled out for behavior engaged in by others in the same editing context.
1) Instantnood ( talk · contribs) has edited aggressively in the context of changing names and proposing page moves and surveys in the context of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) but has generally honored that policy. His adversaries SchmuckyTheCat ( talk · contribs) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2/Workshop#Massive_name_changes_by_STC and Huaiwei ( talk · contribs) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2/Workshop#Edit_history_of_List_of_companies_in_the_People.27s_Republic_of_China have been just as aggressive and disruptive and sometimes have not appropriately interpreted Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese).
2) In pursuance of their views regarding disputed usage Huaiwei ( talk · contribs) and SchmuckyTheCat ( talk · contribs) have engaged in edit warring in order to preserve their preferred usage, for example repeatedly removing Economy of Hong Kong from Category Category:Economies by country [9] and [10].
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.
1) Instantnood ( talk · contribs) is restricted to proposing only one page move, poll of editors, or policy change relating to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) per week.
2) Instantnood ( talk · contribs) is reminded to make useful edit summaries.
3) In order to craft a remedy which would apply to all the users involved in ongoing struggles over the matters involved here, Huaiwei ( talk · contribs) is joined to this case.
4) Instantnood ( talk · contribs) is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any article which relates to China which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. Instantnood must be notified on their talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. They may post suggestions on the talk page of any article they are banned from editing. This remedy is crafted to permit Instantnood continuing to edit articles in these areas which are not sources of controversy.
5) Huaiwei ( talk · contribs) is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any article which relates to China which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. Huaiwei must be notified on their talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. They may post suggestions on the talk page of any article they are banned from editing. This remedy is crafted to permit Huaiwei continuing to edit articles in these areas which are not sources of controversy.
6) SchmuckyTheCat ( talk · contribs) is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any article which relates to China which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. SchmuckyTheCat must be notified on their talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. They may post suggestions on the talk page of any article they are banned from editing. This remedy is crafted to permit SchmuckyTheCat continuing to edit articles in these areas which are not sources of controversy.
As per dicussion at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Instantnood_and_Huaiwei, both parties have continued revert-warring and disrupting normal editing on articles outside the original probation.
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Instantnood_placed_on_probation is modified to: Instantnood ( talk · contribs) is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any article or talk page which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. Instantnood must be notified on their talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I.
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Huaiwei_placed_on_probation is modified to: Huaiwei ( talk · contribs) is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any article or talk page which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. Huaiwei must be notified on their talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I.
I think this should be merged into Instantnood 3, with a temporary injunction of some sort. -- Phroziac . o º O ( ♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 17:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
1) Should a Wikipedia administrator feel it necessary that those placed on probation in this matter be banned from an article where they are engaged in edit warring, removal of sourced material, POV reorganizations of the article or any other activity which the user considers disruptive they shall place a template {{[user name] banned}} at the top of the talk page of the article and notify Instantnood on their talk page. The template shall include the ending date of the ban (one year from this decision) and a link to Wikipedia:Probation. The template may be removed by any one at the end of the ban. See Wikipedia:Probation
Here log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.
Case Opened on June 30, 2005 19:41 (UTC)
Case Closed on 19:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Case is a re-opening of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al.
Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.
Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.
Prior case is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al. (was closed without any action taken).
ArbCom, please re-open the closed case against Instantnood for the following reasons:
Making Instantnood aware I've asked to re-open. [5]
If not, then explain why that would be fruitless
The existing case is already overwhelming.
Since the closing of it, Instantnood has made thousands of edits. At least 80% of which are marked as minor edit. I'm guessing of the last 2000 edits, less than 50 have an edit summary. Many of the minor edits include renaming China and Taiwan to his preferred versions - exactly what there was no consensus to do in his massive voting proposals that started the last arbcom case. Marking controversial edits as minor with no editing summary is clearly non-constructive towards building an encyclopedia.
If I might be indulged, this is absolutely ridiculous. The fact that the ArbCom made a procedural error should not be sufficient reason to put Instantnood under arbitration again barely two weeks after the first issue was concluded. Furthermore, the continued and continuing personal attacks against Instantnood by Schmucky — you can see below for its translation from Cantonese — absolutely pulverize any moral grounding he might have for bringing this case. Obviously he's attempted nothing further in any other area of dispute resolution since this has occured. I implore the ArbCom not to validate the intimidation levied against Instantnood and to let this issue remain concluded or, failing that, at least refer it to mediation before adjudicating it again, so at least a second hearing will have something new to show. Wally 21:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I encourage this case to be taken up - the old case should never have been closed at all, both procedurally and factually. Instantnood is a clear problem. We need to deal with it. Snowspinner June 30, 2005 17:57 (UTC)
If this is not re-opened, I would like to hear the ArbCom's opinions on what to do on the entire Mainland China matter. I'm asking because Category:Economy of mainland China appeared on WP:CFD today, with Schmucky proposing a rename and Instantnood opposing that. I hope this doesn't mean we're back at square one? R adiant _>|< 23:18, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Tell me what's this: 唔屌到你唔好以為自己好撚型,屌那星! 含家呤 (Don't think you're damn smart if I don't fuck you. Fuck that star. Go to hell your entire family) I found this threatening statment in Instatnood's talk page.
Obviously, someone has made serious insult plus personal attack before the arbitration. In fact, SchmuckyTheCat used to write indecently weird phrases like 猶太陰莖貓 (Jewish Penis Cat) in his (I use "his" because he's got a penis as he claims) user page, and for many times I see he creates some users' pages by adding a full stop. I don't think that's a patent accident at all. Does it violate some rules of wikipedia? I'm new to here, and I know little about Wikipedia's policy. But I would feel terribly annoyed if someone attempted to "deflower" my user page -- that's just like rape, to be honest. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That should be adopted from songs of Lazy Mutha Fucka, I suppose. Don't tell me they're singing for the Church. By the way, what do you mean by "nearly a Godwin"? Please elaborate. :-D
PS I see the meaning of Schmuck. It's not weird, it's not indecent--its vulgar. :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 21:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
And yet again I choose to put myself in this case so that people can see what is being commonly mistaken. I prsonally believe that Education in Taiwan should NOT be there. Taiwan = Taiwan island. It does NOT include the islands that currently under the jurisdiction of the RoC government. (Title is misleading.) And I also agree that if something does not apply to Hong Kong and Macau, it should not be titled with PRC, seeing that the term mainland China more closely describes it. It's NOT about the fact that the political entity. Sure, if Taiwan announces its independence, then fine, I am OK with keeping articles regarding Taiwan where they are. But people are using Common Names policy to rebuff NPOV.
We have GOT to make sure that the NPOV policy must override Common Names policy. We need to make sure that things are factually correct, too. I hereby sincerely request ArbCom to look at each piece of evidence separately, as these articles must be examined on a case-by-case basis and because of the current political issues, it is currently impossible to uniform all articles of these topics. Thank you. -- Penwhale 1 July 2005 13:27 (UTC)
By the way, this does NOT state that I suggest an overall move. I'm stating that some of the evidence provided by SchmuckyTheCat above, here and here (particularly on the top few lines), in an attempt to prove that Instantnood was trying to disrupt; these edits are technically correct and should not be used against him. I would have made the same edits in those two links. -- Penwhale
SchmuckyTheCat 1 July 2005 23:18 (UTC)
The previous ArbCom case was not opened as a case against any single user, but a case that several users are involved. User:SchmuckyTheCat and his advocate User:Snowspinner expressed in their statemen ts above that they were requesting to reopen the case. They did not request to have a new case. Therefore this case should not be considered a case against me, but rather, as a continuation of the previous case, a case with several parties involved. In this regard I would like to request the Arbitration Committee to change the title of the case to better reflect its nature as a continuation. Further, as this case is a continuation, the subject matter of the case should remain unchanged. Any other disputed issues unrelated to the previous case, if there is any, should not be included. Statements and evidence presented by myself and by my advocates on my behalf in the previous case remain valid and applicable. — Insta ntnood July 4, 2005 19:34 (UTC)
I am submitting a statement to the effect of factual and technical information pertaining to this argument. While Hong Kong, Macau, and China, and debateably Taiwan are under the national government of the People's Republic of China, the extent to which they co-operate is questionable. Therefore, categories like Category:Economy of Hong Kong, Category:Economy of Taiwan, et al exist to differentiate the information and to make it clear that subjects such as the Hong Kong Harbour Business Forum is not related to Taiwan, and would not make sense to be lumped together into some giant, all-encompassing category.
Furthermore, there is no nation or language that refers to the People's Republic of China as "mainland China". If anything, it is casual shorthand. It has no established useage, unlike say Metropolitan France. Since it is not properly defined (Can we include Hong Kong and Macau, but not Taiwan?, etc.) it exists outside of the realm of what is generally considered appropriate for encyclopaedias, as we should attempt to be as specific as possible with information.
To speak of the situation between SchmuckytheCat and Instantnood, I find personally that this should be less an argument of "who said what" and instead go beyond petty politics into what the real issue is: Whether the PR China should be referred to as mainland China (which is, some could argue, a uniquely Hong Kong/Macau/Taiwan point of view) or the People's Republic of China. To use my example about Metropolitan France again, the category for articles pertaining to France is Category:xx of France, and not Category:xx of Metropolitan France. Why should China be any different? Páll (Die pienk olifant) 21:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
1) Wikipedia has adopted a number of policies and guidelines, see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. While policies are binding on Wikipedia users, guidelines are not, though they should be applied in most cases. This includes Naming conventions, in this case Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese).
2) Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Political_NPOV) provides, in pertinent part:
Wikipedia entries should avoid taking sides on controversial sovereignty issues such as the status of Taiwan and Tibet. Although the United Nations and most sovereign states in the world have recognized the People's Republic of China as the sole government of China, Wikipedia should reflect the neutral reality and not use the term "China" to coincide with any particular state or government. In particular, the word "China" (in a political, diplomatic or national sense refering to current affairs) should not be used to be synonymously with areas under the current administration (government) of the People's Republic of China i.e. (geographically) within Mainland China. (Historical and such 'old-name' Geographic and political references before 1945— 1947 excepted.)
As a general rule of thumb, the official political terms "People's Republic of China" or "PRC" and "Republic of China" or "ROC" should be used in political contexts (that is, to describe the existing regimes or governments) rather than the imprecise and politically charged terms "China" and "Taiwan." For example, " Hu Jintao is the President of the People's Republic of China" is preferred over "Hu Jintao is the President of China." Likewise, one should write "one must be an ROC citizen to vote in the ROC presidential election" as opposed to "one must be a Taiwanese citizen to vote in the Taiwanese presidential election."
Taiwan should not be described either as an independent nation or as a part of the People's Republic of China. Wikipedia should merely state the de facto situation that Taiwan is governed by an indepedent government/state/regime called the "Republic of China." When it is necessary to describe the political status of Taiwan, special note should be made of Taiwan's complex position. Thus, the term "Taiwan" should only be used when referring to the island itself. Furthermore, the term "province of Taiwan" can be offensive and should only be used when attributed to its source or referring specifically to the existing division under the ROC (for example, " James Soong was the only popularly elected governor of Taiwan Province").
The term "mainland China" is a term which can be used when a comparison is to be made with Taiwan for non-political purposes. Hong Kong and Macau are generally not considered part of Mainland China, though under the jurisdiction of the PRC. Thus, it is more appropriate to write "many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting mainland China" than "many tourists from Hong Kong and Taiwan are visiting China" as the latter could imply that Hong Kong and Taiwan are not part of China.
3) A guideline such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) can be changed by the Wikipedia community, see how policies are decided. This policy provides for consensus decision-making by those users who are familiar with the matter, in this case, regular editors of Chinese-related topics.
4) An existing guideline such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) remains in full force and effect until it is changed in conformity with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#How are policies decided?,
5) All Wikipedia policies, guidelines and naming conventions should be applied in a thoughtful way appropriate to the circumstances of the situation. Rote, mechanical application of a naming convention is more likely to be disruptive than productive.
6) Wikipedia uses categories as an aid to the reader. They are not intended to be information in themselves, but are useful in finding information. As applied to this case, Literature of Hong Kong can appropriately be in both the category "Literature of Hong Kong" and "Literature of China" despite the possibility that some part of the literature of Hong Kong may not be included within the literature of China (perhaps a domestic sketch of an English household living in Hong Kong).
7) A Wikipedia user's behavior must be considered in the context of the other editors editing in the same area. A user should not be singled out for behavior engaged in by others in the same editing context.
1) Instantnood ( talk · contribs) has edited aggressively in the context of changing names and proposing page moves and surveys in the context of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) but has generally honored that policy. His adversaries SchmuckyTheCat ( talk · contribs) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2/Workshop#Massive_name_changes_by_STC and Huaiwei ( talk · contribs) Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2/Workshop#Edit_history_of_List_of_companies_in_the_People.27s_Republic_of_China have been just as aggressive and disruptive and sometimes have not appropriately interpreted Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese).
2) In pursuance of their views regarding disputed usage Huaiwei ( talk · contribs) and SchmuckyTheCat ( talk · contribs) have engaged in edit warring in order to preserve their preferred usage, for example repeatedly removing Economy of Hong Kong from Category Category:Economies by country [9] and [10].
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.
1) Instantnood ( talk · contribs) is restricted to proposing only one page move, poll of editors, or policy change relating to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) per week.
2) Instantnood ( talk · contribs) is reminded to make useful edit summaries.
3) In order to craft a remedy which would apply to all the users involved in ongoing struggles over the matters involved here, Huaiwei ( talk · contribs) is joined to this case.
4) Instantnood ( talk · contribs) is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any article which relates to China which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. Instantnood must be notified on their talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. They may post suggestions on the talk page of any article they are banned from editing. This remedy is crafted to permit Instantnood continuing to edit articles in these areas which are not sources of controversy.
5) Huaiwei ( talk · contribs) is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any article which relates to China which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. Huaiwei must be notified on their talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. They may post suggestions on the talk page of any article they are banned from editing. This remedy is crafted to permit Huaiwei continuing to edit articles in these areas which are not sources of controversy.
6) SchmuckyTheCat ( talk · contribs) is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any article which relates to China which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. SchmuckyTheCat must be notified on their talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. They may post suggestions on the talk page of any article they are banned from editing. This remedy is crafted to permit SchmuckyTheCat continuing to edit articles in these areas which are not sources of controversy.
As per dicussion at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Instantnood_and_Huaiwei, both parties have continued revert-warring and disrupting normal editing on articles outside the original probation.
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Instantnood_placed_on_probation is modified to: Instantnood ( talk · contribs) is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any article or talk page which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. Instantnood must be notified on their talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I.
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Huaiwei_placed_on_probation is modified to: Huaiwei ( talk · contribs) is placed on Wikipedia:Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of judgement for reasonable cause, documented in a section of this decision, may ban them from any article or talk page which they disrupt by inappropriate editing. Huaiwei must be notified on their talk page of any bans and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I.
I think this should be merged into Instantnood 3, with a temporary injunction of some sort. -- Phroziac . o º O ( ♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 17:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
1) Should a Wikipedia administrator feel it necessary that those placed on probation in this matter be banned from an article where they are engaged in edit warring, removal of sourced material, POV reorganizations of the article or any other activity which the user considers disruptive they shall place a template {{[user name] banned}} at the top of the talk page of the article and notify Instantnood on their talk page. The template shall include the ending date of the ban (one year from this decision) and a link to Wikipedia:Probation. The template may be removed by any one at the end of the ban. See Wikipedia:Probation
Here log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.