Pulled from the last case: (I added this a long time ago in the evidence where it was probably the wrong place for it. It's still acceptable, I don't want punitive relief - just something that steers this guy towards constructive editing.)
I've always said, and believed, that Instantnood attempts to make valid contributions and believes in the success of wikipedia. I hope these restrictions encourage positive contributions rather than be outright bans or blocks.
SchmuckyTheCat 1 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)
ONE POLL A WEEK?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Snowspinner 21:34, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
This currently says:
I don't understand how the diff would back up that claim. In fact, I'm not even sure the claim is true. What's at the core of the controversy is, among other things, the fact that the PRC operates openly under the "One Country, Two (or more) Systems" formula. This means that the Special Administrative Regions have their own economic, legal, and political systems that don't neatly fit into how the rest of the country operates. For the list of cities in the People's Republic of China there are thus two possible ways of organizing the list: (mostly) flat, essentially listing all cities in alphabetical order; and structured (as is currently the case), replicating the administrative hierarchy of the PRC into provinces, province-level and prefecture-level cities, SARs, etc. Instantnood is usually pushing (I won't comment on whether this is justified in all instances) for a clear distinction between the SARs (Hong Kong and Macau) and the other parts of the PRC. In this case, since the list is structured, the crucial point is that the SARs have their own internal administrative hiearchies which don't match the rest of the PRC. Because "rest of the PRC" is not a very useful term, the phrase "mainland China" is used in this context to refer to all of the PRC except Hong Kong and Macau (some people, e.g. SchmuckyTheCat, have disputed that usage). I don't think it implies anything at all about sovereignty, it is presumably only intended to reflect the implications of "One Country, Two Systems" that the PRC officially operates under (which, one might argue, does mean that Beijing does not have full sovereignty over Hong Kong for all practical purposes). -- MarkSweep ✍ 20:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Concurring with MarkSweep, I really don't see how Instanthood's edit is "incongruent with the sovereignty of the People's Republic of China." A city in Chinese is called 市. HK and MO are not "cities" (市), but "regions" (區). More specifically, they are "special administrative regions" (特別行政區). There is no ambiguity here, at least not in Chinese, between a city and a region. Who is calling HK and MO "cities" in Chinese? It's even seldom done in English, especially after the handovers. -- Ji ang 09:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
As for the list of cities in the PRC, the entire list follow the same definitions, that is, a type of administrative division applied to the entirety of the PRC except Hong Kong and Macao. Unlike the situation of the US (or other federal states) where the definition of city as an administrative unit varies slightly from states to states, in the case of PRC (and many other unitary states) it's uniform. — Insta ntnood 15:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Should a link to this section of the talk page be provided on the proposed finding of fact section? Arbitrators who are voting may not be aware of the exchange here. — Insta ntnood 05:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the enforcement proposals here: "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."
This gives all power, without mechanisms for review or veto, to a single administrator. There is no provision for them to be unbanned once they are banned. When there is a disagreement of what constitutes "inappropriate editing", the provision here is biased towards declaring "inappropriate editing" and banning. Why give so much power to any one administrator? I thought admins weren't supposed to be making editorial decisions. In the very least, there should be a quorum of admins to ban, or a way for the decision of any one administrator to be reversed under sufficient opposition.-- Ji ang 09:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm really not sure anyone ever needs to post a poll a week on a topic. Snowspinner 02:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
As the disputes involved in this case explicitly include categories, and have recently spread to include the stub namespace, would the arbcom consider broadening article-related provisions to category-pages and templates, too?
Incidentally, remedies 5 & 6 appear to mandate that Instantnood be informed if either of the other two are barred from an article under the terms of their probation, which I assume is a cut-and-paste error. Alai 05:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Pulled from the last case: (I added this a long time ago in the evidence where it was probably the wrong place for it. It's still acceptable, I don't want punitive relief - just something that steers this guy towards constructive editing.)
I've always said, and believed, that Instantnood attempts to make valid contributions and believes in the success of wikipedia. I hope these restrictions encourage positive contributions rather than be outright bans or blocks.
SchmuckyTheCat 1 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)
ONE POLL A WEEK?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Snowspinner 21:34, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
This currently says:
I don't understand how the diff would back up that claim. In fact, I'm not even sure the claim is true. What's at the core of the controversy is, among other things, the fact that the PRC operates openly under the "One Country, Two (or more) Systems" formula. This means that the Special Administrative Regions have their own economic, legal, and political systems that don't neatly fit into how the rest of the country operates. For the list of cities in the People's Republic of China there are thus two possible ways of organizing the list: (mostly) flat, essentially listing all cities in alphabetical order; and structured (as is currently the case), replicating the administrative hierarchy of the PRC into provinces, province-level and prefecture-level cities, SARs, etc. Instantnood is usually pushing (I won't comment on whether this is justified in all instances) for a clear distinction between the SARs (Hong Kong and Macau) and the other parts of the PRC. In this case, since the list is structured, the crucial point is that the SARs have their own internal administrative hiearchies which don't match the rest of the PRC. Because "rest of the PRC" is not a very useful term, the phrase "mainland China" is used in this context to refer to all of the PRC except Hong Kong and Macau (some people, e.g. SchmuckyTheCat, have disputed that usage). I don't think it implies anything at all about sovereignty, it is presumably only intended to reflect the implications of "One Country, Two Systems" that the PRC officially operates under (which, one might argue, does mean that Beijing does not have full sovereignty over Hong Kong for all practical purposes). -- MarkSweep ✍ 20:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Concurring with MarkSweep, I really don't see how Instanthood's edit is "incongruent with the sovereignty of the People's Republic of China." A city in Chinese is called 市. HK and MO are not "cities" (市), but "regions" (區). More specifically, they are "special administrative regions" (特別行政區). There is no ambiguity here, at least not in Chinese, between a city and a region. Who is calling HK and MO "cities" in Chinese? It's even seldom done in English, especially after the handovers. -- Ji ang 09:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
As for the list of cities in the PRC, the entire list follow the same definitions, that is, a type of administrative division applied to the entirety of the PRC except Hong Kong and Macao. Unlike the situation of the US (or other federal states) where the definition of city as an administrative unit varies slightly from states to states, in the case of PRC (and many other unitary states) it's uniform. — Insta ntnood 15:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Should a link to this section of the talk page be provided on the proposed finding of fact section? Arbitrators who are voting may not be aware of the exchange here. — Insta ntnood 05:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the enforcement proposals here: "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."
This gives all power, without mechanisms for review or veto, to a single administrator. There is no provision for them to be unbanned once they are banned. When there is a disagreement of what constitutes "inappropriate editing", the provision here is biased towards declaring "inappropriate editing" and banning. Why give so much power to any one administrator? I thought admins weren't supposed to be making editorial decisions. In the very least, there should be a quorum of admins to ban, or a way for the decision of any one administrator to be reversed under sufficient opposition.-- Ji ang 09:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm really not sure anyone ever needs to post a poll a week on a topic. Snowspinner 02:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
As the disputes involved in this case explicitly include categories, and have recently spread to include the stub namespace, would the arbcom consider broadening article-related provisions to category-pages and templates, too?
Incidentally, remedies 5 & 6 appear to mandate that Instantnood be informed if either of the other two are barred from an article under the terms of their probation, which I assume is a cut-and-paste error. Alai 05:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)