Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

First assertion
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "Jimmy Wales engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show Jimmy Wales engaging in edit warring

Second assertion
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.

Edit warring by Instantnood
Instantnood edit wars. A lot. And it tends to be about really small stuff.


 * Category:Cinema of Hong Kong
 * 14:43, July 21, 2005: Huaiwei changes categorization structure
 * 15:09, July 21, 2005: Instantnood reverts Huaiwei
 * 15:25, July 21, 2005: Huaiwei reverts Instantnood
 * 14:25, July 24, 2005: Instantnood reverts Huaiwei (anonymous edit shown is just an edit that happened between reverts)
 * 15:52, July 26, 2005: Huaiwei reverts Instantnood
 * 16:05, July 26, 2005: Instantnood reverts Huaiwei


 * Supreme court
 * 11:47, January 8, 2006: Huaiwei reverts Instantnood
 * 12:36, January 8, 2006: Instantnood reverts Huaiwei
 * 13:21, January 8, 2006: Huaiwei reverts Instantnood
 * 14:37, January 8, 2006: Instantnood reverts Huaiwei
 * 14:38, January 8, 2006: Huaiwei reverts Instantnood
 * 18:39, January 10, 2006: Instantnood reverts Huaiwei


 * Transportation in Beijing
 * 21:51, November 30, 2005: reverts Instantnood
 * 22:12, November 30, 2005: Instantnood reverts Alanmak
 * 22:14, November 30, 2005: Alanmak reverts Instantnood
 * 22:25, November 30, 2005: Instantnood reverts Alanmak

Instantnood re-ignites old edit wars
Instantnood often stops reverting an article, just to go back and revert again a month or two later.


 * Category:Cinema of Hong Kong
 * 14:43, July 21, 2005: Huaiwei changes categorization structure
 * 15:09, July 21, 2005: Instantnood reverts Huaiwei
 * 15:25, July 21, 2005: Huaiwei reverts Instantnood
 * 14:25, July 24, 2005: Instantnood reverts Huaiwei (anonymous edit shown is just an edit that happened between reverts)
 * 16:14, July 26, 2005: Huaiwei reverts Instantnood
 * 18:52, August 30, 2005: After a long break, Instantnood makes the same exact revert on Huaiwei
 * 09:07, September 1, 2005: Huaiwei reverts Instantnood
 * 09:10, September 1, 2005: Instantnood reverts Huaiwei
 * 19:39, January 15, 2006: Instantnood reverts Huaiwei after a break lasting several months
 * 00:31, January 16, 2006: Huaiwei reverts Instantnood

Nuclear war between Instantnood and Huaiwei
Instantnood and constantly revert each other.


 * Category:Cinema of Hong Kong
 * 14:43, July 21, 2005: Huaiwei changes categorization structure
 * 15:09, July 21, 2005: Instantnood reverts Huaiwei
 * 15:25, July 21, 2005: Huaiwei reverts Instantnood


 * Supreme court
 * 11:47, January 8, 2006: Huaiwei reverts Instantnood
 * 12:36, January 8, 2006: Instantnood reverts Huaiwei


 * Barbecued pork with rice
 * 13:03, January 8, 2006: Instantnood reverts Huaiwei
 * 13:35, January 8, 2006: Huaiwei reverts Instantnood


 * Barbecued pork
 * 00:01, January 12, 2006: Huaiwei reverts Instantnood
 * 19:04, January 12, 2006: Instantnood reverts huaiwei
 * 11:52, January 15, 2006: Huaiwei reverts Instantnood


 * Category:Cinema of Taiwan
 * 09:11, September 1, 2005: Instantnood reverts Huaiwei
 * 09:14, September 1, 2005: Huaiwei reverts Instantnood

Evidence presented by Wgfinley
Through agreement with Phroziac I'm going to present evidence against Huaiwei and Phroziac is presenting evidence against Instantnood. This is intended to help the arbitrators efficiently review the evidence and hopefully we won't overlap much. I'm certain the claims of bias will fly and frankly, I don't care, it's not true.

Also, I could fill these pages with diffs, I am boiling it down. I am also giving commentary with diffs rather than just diffs, a review of the histories surrounding these diffs will show more, my comment is intended to summarize issues to boil down the points. Also, my comments are specific to Huaiwei and not Instant, the histories on these articles will show both sides of the war.

Huaiwei re-ignites old wars

 * 30 days after last edit Huaiwei makes one of his "mainland China" to "PRC" changes
 * Huaiwei revisits in January an edit war that happened back in August. He also references a completely different article and Instant by name even though Instant hasn't edited the article in 5 months.  This is an innocuous dab page.
 * Huaiweii goes to the July way-back machine to revisit another "mainland China" to "PRC" debate in this 11 Dec edit
 * Since August 2002 when this article was created, it listed museums on "greater China" together. Huaiwei decides they need to be separated and an edit war ensues.

Huaiwei engages in wikistalking
Similar to the Skyring case, Huaiwei engages in wikistalking. Much of the evidence in this case shows clear wikistalking but the following are most telling as they demonstrate a clear behavior where Huaiwei likes to mimic Instantnood's edit summary or makes an "unexpected" appearance after an Instant edit.


 * Huaiwei mimcs Instantnood's edit summary
 * From Queensway above, Huaiwei happens to find an article the same day Instant does.
 * I'll let the members draw their own conclusion on what "here I come" signifies
 * No article is safe, here Instant adds a photo of a Hong Kong clock tower to the article and, surprise, Huaiwei shows up and has issues.
 * Instant restarts an old debate on this one but Huaiwei is quickly there complete with full mimic of Instantnood's edit summaries (trying to elicit a "stop copying me" response perhaps?)

Huaiwei has no intent on changing his behavior
Put simply, Huaiwei has no intention of stopping.


 * Deliberately violates an article ban to make a point of his objectiion to the article being reverted to its pre-edit war state after he was banned.
 * Missive about how his edit warring is deserved because of other articles that have nothing to do with the one in question - the heart of Huaiwei's belief that he has cause to edit war.
 * Offers to provide a list of edit warring articles (no reference to ceasing edit warring).
 * Arbitration ruling regarding page bans just allows others to edit war on Instant's behalf according to Huaiwei.
 * Considers it his duty to follow Instant and offers a 1.5 year summary of the dispute admin should review otherwise Huaiwei will dismiss him (me) as biased.
 * Demands further convincing (besides an ArbCom ruling and probation apparently) to cease edit warring.
 * Admins should not be able to say "cease or else".
 * Different admin, same attitude, Huaiwei doesn't need to discuss changes on talk pages
 * Wikilawyering, it is more important to clear up if he discussed several weeks ago, not that he was edit warring.
 * Again, admins who don't review the entire history aren't allowed to admonish Huaiwei and a good example of Huaiwei's "us versus them" attitude and paranoid behavior -- if you don't endorse his behavior you are obviously biased against him.
 * Again, "why do you care so much about this article, I can provide you with so many others that I edit war on."

Okay, I'm tired now, I could go on and on. I won't even get into his attacks on me.

Bans and blocks have no effect
To get a good summary of this case one look no further the ban and blocks resulting from the last case. Check the histories of any of these articles, lists, categories or what have you and you will see a rash of edit warring, inflammatory edit summaries, and clear vocalization of intent to not change a thing. Review the blocks issued by various admins only to have Huaiwei or Instantood come back and go right back at their old behavior again. Review Huaiwei's talk page further and see how far he will go to refuse to take responsibility for himself and instead confuse the issue.

There is a steadfast refusal to comply, when blocks are done for longer periods they are met with protests and wikilawyering on AN/I. Unfortunately I can see no other recourse in this case save long term bans as the Committee deems fit. --Wgfinley 06:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Assertion 1: Instantnood is still edit warring
Since the close of the last case Instantnood has kept a revert war going on about a dozen articles.


 * Evidence

Rather than diffs, look at Instantnood's edit history for 20 January 2006. (And go back as many days as you want, it's all the same pattern every single day).

Discarding any talk page discussion are 24 edits to articles, categories, or templates. An astonishing seventeen of them are reverts. 71% reverts? Only one revert has any talk page discussion.


 * Relief requested


 * Instantnood should be required to back up any revert with a talk page discussion.

Instantnood revives stale edit wars
In his daily edit wars, he has a rotating staple of articles. On any given day he might drop a few articles. He also re-ignites a few stale edit wars from months ago. This purposefully starts the edit wars he has been admonished to stop participating in.


 * Evidence






 * Relief requested


 * Instantnood should be banned from performing the same revert (other than simple vandalism) more than once.

Instantnood reverts with a lot of people, not just a few
It is not a matter of two other people (myself and Huaiwei) who are revert warring with him. Instantnood reverts everyone.


 * Evidence

There are hundreds of revert wars with Alanmak, mostly about food and language infoboxes. Here's an example: (look at January 11-14, 2006).

In reviving old wars, other editors revert him too, Wangi in this case, ; and Laomei in this one. There are plenty of others.


 * Relief requested

Instantnood violates Wikipedia naming conventions and fails to seek consensus
This is the core of the problem.

Wikipedia has several policies for naming countries. We use the most common name, we have guidelines for naming conflicts, we have specific conventions for China, and we also have common sense. What applies to article names is usually the case for text within articles as well.
 * On use of "mainland China"

The short and common name for the country "the People's Republic of China" is "China". There is no confusion by anyone that unless the context might be confusing, "China" refers to the PRC. There are legitimate uses for "mainland China" but it is not a general purpose name and is not an official name.

All former colonial powers (Spain, Portugal, France, etc), the modern United States and it's post-WW2 possessions, and several other countries (for whatever reason), have oddball territories that may or not be incorporated and may or may not be governed separately. In no case do we at Wikipedia rename the holding country by the exonym used by those in the territory. It isn't necessary to do so in article text either, except for simple disambiguation.

We don't name articles about France to Metropolitan France because of colonies, territories, overseas provinces, etc. We don't rename articles about Finland to Mainland Finland because of Åland. Etc for Spain, Denmark, the US, etc.

Instantnood repeatedly renames "China" to "mainland China" in violation of all of these policies, and he does it without discussion, without consensus, without seeking consensus, and sometimes in direct objection to consensus. He re-defines general purpose Chinese categories to be "mainland only" without discussion.

Instantnood's abuse of the term is what leads to a lot of edit warring.


 * Evidence about misuse of "mainland China"

This page has a dab header specifying that it refers to the mainland with links to other articles as the very first sentence of the article. Instantnood decided that more than 50 instances of China needed to be "mainland China":

The categories above as evidence of re-igniting stale edit wars are also examples of his re-defining of existing categories.

Of the existing article bans, probably half involve some variation of using mainland China,    + all the categories he's been banned from.


 * Requested relief


 * Instantnood should be required to request consensus before making any change to or from the use of the term "mainland China".
 * Instantnood should be banned from making more than one revert (other than simple vandalism) on any article that includes the term "mainland China".

General warring about presentation of Hong Kong
Instantnood has severe issues on any article or category with the manner in which Hong Kong is presented. It is a simple matter of fact that Hong Kong is an incorporated part of China. Though it has a wide latitude to do it's own thing, it's part of China. It's full political name is "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China". Instantnood reverts presentation issues if "Special Administrative Region" or "People's Republic of China" is wikilinked within the full name. Instantnood removes Hong Kong from subsections about "China" in lists. Instantnood removes "People's Republic of China" in lists of cities, or as some sort of compromise, puts confusing parentheses or brackets around it.


 * Evidence

Removes PRC from Hong Kong:, then decides it's ok with brackets, , then removes it again.

Won't wikilink Special Administrative Region:

Again with the brackets and parentheses:

Again won't wikilink to PRC and edit wars about it: ,

Won't include HK/Macau as part of China:,    (in clear violation of the talk page discussion).

The categories he has been banned from are because of the presentation of Hong Kong as part of China.


 * Relief requested


 * Instantnood should be required to request consensus before making any change based on the presentation of Hong Kong
 * Instantnood should be banned from making more than one revert (other than simple vandalism) based on the presentation of Hong Kong

Edit summaries
In the last ArbCom case a finding was made that Instantnood didn't make useful edit summaries (often none at all), marked controversial edits as "minor", and hid controversial edits with minor summaries. As a remedy "2) Instantnood (talk • contribs) is reminded to make useful edit summaries."

Instantnood is NOT making useful edit summaries. He continues to leave null edit summaries. He continues to mark non-minor edits with the minor edit tag.


 * Evidence

This revert of Alanmak has no edit summary whatsoever: (the diff includes an intervening addition by another editor).

Using the parentheses on PRC that he edit wars about with Alanmak, and no edit summary:

No edit summary, part of his edit war on this article:

No edit summary, again part of an edit war:

& etc. These go on and on.

I'm not making not of the hundred or so articles that have no edit summary but aren't part of an edit war. It's also important for Instantnood to make edit summaries here.


 * Relief requested


 * Instantnood is required to make an edit summary for every edit.

Update, 3 Feb 2006

 * Stanley
 * Queen's Road
 * Queensway, Hong Kong
 * Category:Cinema of Hong Kong
 * Category:Macau newspapers
 * Category:Hong Kong newspapers

So, he returns from a seven day block and systematically returns to revert warring. I'm not going to go through the rest of the days edits, I'm sure this revert fest will continue for hours and half a dozen more will be made just while I write this. He's got a weeks worth to catch up on after all.

The newspaper ones are particularly galling. They category was renamed on CfD to be more inclusive, he is:
 * 1) blindly reverting to text that points at the old category, ignoring that it was renamed. Proof positive he's just reverting without paying attention.
 * 2) somehow claiming that my creation of a separate sub-category for Shanghai is a conspiracy against Hong Kong
 * even ignoring the paranoid delusion of my conspiring, hello, WP:FAITH??


 * 1) making edits that have no basis on reality (Hong Kong is part of the PRC, fact check all you want), because he thinks some bureaucratic Wikipedia process was overlooked.

Update, 5 February 2006
Instantnood's apparent justification for reverting often comes to him saying he is just returning an article to the status quo. As a Principle in the decision, there should be a statement that Wikipedia does not have a status quo. The very idea of a status quo is anethema to a wiki (as anyone who has read discussions about creating stable versions, or wikipedia 1.0, etc, can attest). Nor does it have article ownership, original intent, or allow for forking (if you want to fork, start your own project).


 * Evidence


 * Instantnood believes there is a status quo and uses it to justify his actions..
 * See edit summary: (and dozens of other edit summaries since the conclusion of the last arbcom case).
 * Instantnood often uses the term "preferred version" and "displayed version". This ultimatum, that articles must be reverted back before he'd follow through with mediation of the dispute, was the collapse of mediation and why ArbCom has to be involved.

Evidence presented by Deryck C.
''Note: I, Deryck C., do not take sides in the dispute. I just come to present what I've seen.''

The first time, and the only major time, I've been caught in the crossfire between Huaiwei and Instantnood is on the article Hong Kong Central Library - whether it should belong to the category Category: Natioanl libraries. The following shows the inital reversion war:


 * 2005-07-19 20:10 Huaiwei uncatted without prior discussion or notice:
 * 20:31 Instantnood reverted Huaiwei:
 * 20:32 Huaiwei reverted Instantnood:
 * 20:36 Instantnood reverted Huaiwei:

The edit summary, which reads "Reverted for the second time. User:Huaiwei is taking the narrowest sense of the word "national", and she/he has been persistantly editing Hong Kong-related topics in this way." provided by Instantnood in this edit also showed, although remotely, that Huaiwei's decision is against the majority concensus of the writers of the article.


 * 21:43 Huaiwei reverted Instantnood

The edit war then halted for around 12 days since my addition of Category: Hong Kong landmarks, which decision does not relate with the edit war.


 * 2005-07-31 05:07 Instantnood added back the National Library category together with some of his other edits.

IMO this move is legitimate, as Huaiwei's removal of categorization is not supported by prior discussion and is against the previous concensus. However, Instantnood's act is discovered by Huaiwei, and Huaiwei revived the edit war, adding an offensive comment (describing Instantnood as "stealthy") in the edit summary.


 * 13:47 Huaiwei removed the category
 * 16:14 Instantnood reverted Huaiwei
 * 18:01 Huaiwei reverted Instantnood

The war then halted again when I started to add the floor plan, per request by Jerry Mann. At the same time I proposed a vote and negotiation on Talk: Hong Kong Central Library, but Huaiwei refused to cooperate. So I took (or mistook) Huaiwei's act as not willing to cooperate, and added back the category per previous community concensus.

It was all the way peaceful until 4 August, when Huaiwei removed the categorization again. Instantnood didn't intefere nor edited the article for even once afterwards. To avoid reviving the edit war again, I decided not to add back the category before this RfArb concludes.

I would recommend the ArbCom's allowance for me to add back the category, per the community concensus before the start of the edit war. -- De ryc k C.  04:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)