User:Huaiwei and User:SchmuckyTheCat have been placed on probation on China-related articles as per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Enforcement. Due to their continuing insistence on unilateral moves of Kung hei fat choi to Chinese New Years greetings, and subsequent mergers to Chinese New Year, all without consensus (this is all documented at Talk:Chinese_New_Years_greetings), I request that these two users be blocked from editing the following articles:
and any new pages relating to the Chinese New Year and its related greetings.
These two users have Huaiwei has engaged in uncivil comments on the above-linked talk page. Furthermore, a neutral third party has determined that their actions are unjustified. Thus, there is a strong case for their ban from these articles. I am an admin, but as I have been involved, I cannot perform such a block myself. Thanks.
enochlau (
talk)
23:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
SchmuckyTheCat 23:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
To keep it easier for people who have not been following the article. Evidence as I see it.
Huaiwei Incivility
Claims consenus where none exists - accuses of others of filbusting when he is the main talker on the page - [18]
SchmuckyTheCat Page Moving
SchmuckyTheCat has not been contributing to the discussion, but he seems to have a very hairtrigger finger on the move button. As soon as he sees any _vague_ confirmation that there _might_ be consenus as a signal to move the page (12 Dec and then on 20 Dec). Combined with Huaiwei 's proclaimations, this is what has lead to the push-and-pull just prior to the page protection.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Novacatz ( talk • contribs) 14:19, 22 December 2005
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Enforcement exists because of issues over HK autonomy and the Taiwan question. That you are now insisting the above has been violated when this is actually a dispute over the prevalance of Chinese dialects in the English language, appears to be an attempt at abusing it to force your views upon others. All the more so, when you failed to also nominate User:Instantnood, who was similarly involved and reverted page moves not once [20], not twice [21], but three times [22]. By your appllication of the above probation, would he not be equally guilty of its violation? Is he not nominated because he happened to share your views on this issue?
As for my conduct, while I do agree some of my comments are uncalled for, I am certainly curious to know:
And since we are at it, can you explain the comment "Are you this bitter and insulting in real life? Being an online conversation doens't meant that you can make generalisations on others" [26] (provocation)? And "You've highlighted novacatz's "go edit the article". Now what on Earth does that mean?" [27] (false accusation?) And [28] (is that a threat?)
Even as it is, I must comment that in comparison, User:novacatz, although similarly disputing some of the moves, has actually been relatively civil and shows greater desire for resolution here, even thou he may do certain actions I disapproved of (such as removing the dispute tag prematurely). Still, a much better person to talk to compared to the nominator as above. -- Huaiwei 04:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Question to more experienced administrators: Should this be here, or should this be over at WP:RfC? (I'm just conscious of the lack of responses to date.) enochlau ( talk) 04:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
This looks like a user RFC to me. It even follows the same format. This might be an attempt to smear someone without having to follow the certification requirements at WP:RFC. -- Ryan Delaney talk 04:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
User:Huaiwei and User:SchmuckyTheCat have been placed on probation on China-related articles as per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Enforcement. Due to their continuing insistence on unilateral moves of Kung hei fat choi to Chinese New Years greetings, and subsequent mergers to Chinese New Year, all without consensus (this is all documented at Talk:Chinese_New_Years_greetings), I request that these two users be blocked from editing the following articles:
and any new pages relating to the Chinese New Year and its related greetings.
These two users have Huaiwei has engaged in uncivil comments on the above-linked talk page. Furthermore, a neutral third party has determined that their actions are unjustified. Thus, there is a strong case for their ban from these articles. I am an admin, but as I have been involved, I cannot perform such a block myself. Thanks.
enochlau (
talk)
23:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
SchmuckyTheCat 23:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
To keep it easier for people who have not been following the article. Evidence as I see it.
Huaiwei Incivility
Claims consenus where none exists - accuses of others of filbusting when he is the main talker on the page - [18]
SchmuckyTheCat Page Moving
SchmuckyTheCat has not been contributing to the discussion, but he seems to have a very hairtrigger finger on the move button. As soon as he sees any _vague_ confirmation that there _might_ be consenus as a signal to move the page (12 Dec and then on 20 Dec). Combined with Huaiwei 's proclaimations, this is what has lead to the push-and-pull just prior to the page protection.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Novacatz ( talk • contribs) 14:19, 22 December 2005
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2#Enforcement exists because of issues over HK autonomy and the Taiwan question. That you are now insisting the above has been violated when this is actually a dispute over the prevalance of Chinese dialects in the English language, appears to be an attempt at abusing it to force your views upon others. All the more so, when you failed to also nominate User:Instantnood, who was similarly involved and reverted page moves not once [20], not twice [21], but three times [22]. By your appllication of the above probation, would he not be equally guilty of its violation? Is he not nominated because he happened to share your views on this issue?
As for my conduct, while I do agree some of my comments are uncalled for, I am certainly curious to know:
And since we are at it, can you explain the comment "Are you this bitter and insulting in real life? Being an online conversation doens't meant that you can make generalisations on others" [26] (provocation)? And "You've highlighted novacatz's "go edit the article". Now what on Earth does that mean?" [27] (false accusation?) And [28] (is that a threat?)
Even as it is, I must comment that in comparison, User:novacatz, although similarly disputing some of the moves, has actually been relatively civil and shows greater desire for resolution here, even thou he may do certain actions I disapproved of (such as removing the dispute tag prematurely). Still, a much better person to talk to compared to the nominator as above. -- Huaiwei 04:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Question to more experienced administrators: Should this be here, or should this be over at WP:RfC? (I'm just conscious of the lack of responses to date.) enochlau ( talk) 04:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
This looks like a user RFC to me. It even follows the same format. This might be an attempt to smear someone without having to follow the certification requirements at WP:RFC. -- Ryan Delaney talk 04:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)