Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Huaiwei/Archive1

User:Huaiwei and User:SchmuckyTheCat have been placed on probation on China-related articles as per Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2. 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.
 * Kung hei fat choi
 * Chinese New Years greetings
 * Chinese New Year

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)
 * Please point to one uncivil comment made by me on these talk pages.
 * If your neutral third party is this you'll note they agree with my move from the language biased "Kung hei fat choi" name to the generic "Chinese New Year greetings". Their second comment, that Chinese New Year contains different information from Chinese New Years Greetings ignores the history of Chinese New Year, the exact same information was merged to it (by me), and then heavily edited to remove bias by several editors (ie, not myself.)
 * Your using the probation to back up your content position on the article. I'm still unclear on what you want out of that article, other than your whining about the moves.  You've made no proposal on how to remove language bias from the article, nor have you opposed the edits (post-merger) to Chinese New Year.  I don't understand what you're advocating FOR.
 * The probation requires "inappropriate editing". Asking for WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV isn't inappropriate.


 * Mea culpa, I have edited my statement as above.
 * See the history. You and Huaiwei have continually insisted on having Kung hei fat choi and Chinese New Years greetings redirect to Chinese New Year, until I asked for protection. The neutral party believes that there is scope for an independent article on the greeting(s), and thus it shouldn't be a redirect. You are misinterpreting the words of the neutral party.
 * I have made my position known on Talk:Chinese New Years greetings. I won't repeat them here.
 * Your inappropriate editing is the continual redirecting/moving despite ongoing discussions on the talk page. You haven't just asked for verification and NPOV. Also note, just because an article is NPOV doesn't mean it shouldn't exist; it should just be edited heavily! That has never gotten through to you.


 * I will not make any more statements on this issue, and I'll leave it for an admin to resolve. enochlau (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, do look at the history.
 * I moved it (once), with plenty of agreement from seven other editors.  That isn't a move war.
 * Then upmerged it, once, and created a redirect. . That wasn't an edit war.
 * I reverted once when the redirect was undone, because now we have duplicate content. I didn't revert it after that - if y' all want dupe content, whatEVER.  I had plenty of opportunity in the 20 hours between my single revert and the page protection if I was going to revert war - which I didn't.  I took the issue to the article talk page.
 * In the meantime you haven't made a single positive contribution suggesting a way out of the talk page morass other than to criticize the moves and mergers. You haven't even edited the article itself.  Is that because your goal is to keep the language bias in contrast to NPOV? SchmuckyTheCat 01:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

--

To keep it easier for people who have not been following the article. Evidence as I see it.

Huaiwei Incivility


 * Harrasement during RM discussion/vote -


 * Unproductive Soapboxing Diatribes -


 * Huaiwei starts throwing around accusations -


 * Personal Attack -


 * Huaiwei's POVism -


 * Huaiwei change his position just to argue -


 * Starts name calling -

Claims consenus where none exists - accuses of others of filbusting when he is the main talker on the page -
 * Bad faith in discussion.


 * Starts randomly accusing people -

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
 * So, I'm being blamed for Huaiwei's issues? I've got six discussions there.  I'm just choosing not to get involved in a flame fest.  Anyone there can see exactly what I proposed, did, and justification for it. Beyond that, I don't need to be involved in circular arguments and name calling. (Which you haven't either, thank you.)  SchmuckyTheCat 03:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2 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, not twice , but three times. 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:
 * why my comments made to voters are deemed as "harrasement", since the ensuing comments certainly helps to bring out more pointers?
 * Show me how those comments are "Unproductive Soapboxing Diatribes", when they actually indicate my stand on this issue?
 * In what way am I "throwing around accusations", when that was precisely what happened? Who authorised the decision to remove the dispute tag when the one adding it has yet to respond, and none of you have addressed the issues I brought up?
 * A "Personal Attack" indeed, since the repeated attempts to simply ignore comments and to filbuster is not going anywhere?
 * My "POVism"? huh? So what is my POV based on that quote?
 * I "change my position just to argue"? Yes, I initially supported the move from Cantonese to Mandarin. That was until others who came in and saw the disputes going on, and resolution and to come to a conclusion all may consider nuetral, I decided to support this initiative instead. As I mentioned in, isnt the willingness to move from one's position and to settle on a mediation solution the way mediation works? And to think you consider this an attempt "just to argue"?
 * "Starts name calling"? Excuse me, but when it that quote supposed to be a case of name-calling? What name am I using, and to who am I calling?
 * "Bad faith in discussion". Evidence?
 * "Claims consenus where none exists - accuses of others of filbusting when he is the main talker on the page" As STC has well documented above, the so-called "unilateral moves" has actually support from those who see a need to strike balance in the article as a mediation solution. I even bothered to quote all of them in the talk page when the so-called "no concensus" excuse was brought up again, to which all you did was restate your point of view, and all points I raised earlier were conveniently ignored once again. Filbustering isnt just about who talks more. Its also about who talks alot of stuff which isnt contributing to the discussion. Are you able to demonstrate your contributions to it?
 * "Starts randomly accusing people" Now if you wish to consider that an "accusation", I leave it to you. But "random"? I am pretty sure I addressed my comments to specific individuals. Are you able to show they are erroneous?

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" (provocation)? And "You've highlighted novacatz's "go edit the article". Now what on Earth does that mean?" (false accusation?) And (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)


 * Huaiwei, note - the evidence was presented by me - not enoch. novacatz 04:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Whoops...--Huaiwei 04:25, 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)
 * I had originally thought that it would be undisputed that these users have committed a breach of their probation, but I guess not. I'll move it to RfC when I get a chance. Perhaps no more comments until then, so it's all proper? enochlau (talk) 04:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Really, you put just way too much information here, and it's not very well organized. I can hardly tell what is even going on. --Ryan Delaney talk 05:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)