This is a page for working on arbitration decisions. It provides for work by Arbitrators and comment by the parties and others. After the analysis of evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact and remedies please place proposed items you have confidence in on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 2/Proposed decision. SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs) is sometimes referred to as "STC".

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) 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. Motion by Fred Bauder 14:11, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I don't think this needs a motion - in the past we have simply agreed a person should be part of a case (no necessarily majority agreement, just talking it over) and notified then that they are part of the case. But if it must be a motion, consider this a support -- sannse (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
   1. There have been bitter complaints about proposing remedies which affected users who felt themselves to not be part of the case Fred Bauder 21:59, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
2. Like sannse, I'm not sure if this is necessary, but I'll go along with it. →Raul654 08:03, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
3. Join it ➥the Epopt 21:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
4. OK Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Yes, this is fine with me, too. James F. (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. I would like to point out that I largely chose to steer clear away from previous rounds of arbcom related to this one as I did not agree with the way it was conducted before, particularly when it appears that members could not differentiate between what constitutes a content dispute, and what is specifically aimed at undesirable behavior displayed by wikipedians concerned. I am still observing this latest process, and till then, I do not quite agree to being a part of it just yet.--Huaiwei 08:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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, however they "should be applied in most cases". This includes Naming conventions, in this case Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by parties: SchmuckyTheCat

1. This isn't about the naming conventions. That would have the arbcom deciding a content dispute. The applicability and interpretation of the naming conventions has many people on either side, only Instantnood's behavior is at issue. Everyone else who edits in this area of Wikipedia is able to discuss issues without reverting to edit and revert wars.
2. Here's a proposed policy/guideline to mull over as long as the ArbCom is going to consider this a content dispute: Wikipedia:Naming conflict. I think this proposal is excellent and will address a large number of politically charged naming issues across Wikipedia. The current Chinese naming conventions (at least as interpreted by Instantnood) fail the tests in this proposed policy entirely.

Comment by others:

1. This ultimately is about the naming conventions. They exist for very good reasons: debate about naming should be centralized and key issues should be solved once and apply globally. Without such conventions, there will be (more) inconsistencies between articles, and, more importantly, the community as a whole will engage in the same debates over and over again (the "groundhog day" situation) for each article that is currently covered by the naming conventions. The debates that Instantnood participated in turned very shrill when it became clear that some editors were unaware of the naming conventions, chose to ignore or oppose them, etc. --MarkSweep 05:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by SchmuckyTheCat:

1. This isn't a dispute about the naming conventions. As Snowspinner said, it's not about whether Instantnood is right, it's about whether he is abusive and unhelpful to the goal of writing an encyclopedia. I've entered little or nothing in the "evidence" section of the case about my position on the naming conventions specifically because this is not a content dispute. It's behavior.
2. I've said repeatedly I don't care about what Taiwan is called and I don't do much editing on Taiwanese articles. I've a preference for Taiwan, as the RoC is the official name of the government only, and in large part is being deprecated as a term.

When I've had issue with Instantnood on Taiwan is when he's gone on a renaming spree, which he knows is likely to cause a stir. He marks things with minor edit, links to redirects, and generally doesn't care about the context. He then enforces his edit with reverts that are also marked minor with no edit summary.

1. Part of the "content" dispute that leads to edit wars with Instantnood is his titling of articles relating to the PRC as "mainland China". The naming convention does state "official political terms ... should be used in political contexts" So when Instantnood is retitling or recategorizing bureacratic agencies, political parties, etc, of the PRC as "mainland China" this is specifically not what the naming convention calls for.
2. Additionally, titling or categorizing of articles related to the PRC as "mainland China" is uncalled for, and not addressed, in the naming conventions. As a matter of style anywhere on Wikipedia this would be uncalled for. Even if the subject doesn't pertain to Hong Kong - Hong Kong, as part of the PRC, is the exception not the rule. No other parent soveriegn nation on Wikipedia is referred to by the exonym given it by it's component parts.

Comment by others:

Wikipedia:Consensus

3. A guideline such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) can be changed by the Wikipedia community, see How are policies 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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. First, this isn't about the naming conventions. Second, under the guidelines of consensus, the current naming conventions don't have it. SchmuckyTheCat 23:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. The current naming conventions as article naming conventions entirely fails Wikipedia:Naming conflict. SchmuckyTheCat 17:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

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.3F.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Some of the principals in this matter have acted upon a contrary assumption: that spirited discussion regarding a policy lessoned its validity in some way. Fred Bauder 22:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. I have repeatedly asserted that the naming conventions have little to do with this case. I brought a case against Instantnood who makes controversial edits and claims the naming conventions back him up. They don't, except some of his edits about Taiwan (which aren't part of my claim at all.)

Comment by others:

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I think this is the essence of this matter, trying to apply a set formula to a number of situations which require thoughtful consideration of what is appropriate in that circumstance. Fred Bauder 18:44, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. All wikipedia guidelines includes wiki etiquette, revert wars and edit wars, which are so far unaddressed in the workshop/findings of fact. SchmuckyTheCat 23:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. As response to MarkSweeps statement below: mainland China has it's place, but not in article and category titles. And once an article is defined as "mainland" the term doesn't need to be repeated ad nauseum. SchmuckyTheCat 17:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1. STC's campaign to eliminate the usage of the term "mainland China" is a good example of mechanically applying, uhm, whatever it was that he was applying – it's certainly not a policy, guideline, or conventions, because the naming conventions clearly state that "mainland China" is an appropriate, even preferred, term in certain situations. --MarkSweep 05:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1.1) 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).

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Proposed in Yuber. Fred Bauder 12:28, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. This idea is absolutely antithetical to most of the votes on wp:cfd. I understand it, and if put into policy it makes sense but I don't think wikipedians at large understand it. SchmuckyTheCat 17:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree this is a good solution. But since category:Chinese literature is a subcategory of category:literature by country and there is no separate category:literature by language, Chinese here to refer to a country/region may mean China in general, or specifically mainland China. In modern times (starting from the beginning of the 20th century, perhaps slightly earlier) literature in Hong Kong has enough to distinct itself from the rest of China, like that of cinema. Special notice may be necessary, for these categorisation system tends to be hierachical. — Instantnood 13:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1. That seems like a very good solution. The problem is more of the "Groundhog Day" variety than of the "Highlander" variety. There can be more than one category for each article, just as there can be many redirects pointing to an article. However, as for article titles, there can be only one for each article. --MarkSweep 05:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) The prior case is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al.. Evidence page at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al./Evidence; Proposed decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al./Proposed decision.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2) There have been extensive discussions on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) but no significant change has been made since at least Naming convention (Chinese) in October, 2004.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2.1) There have been extensive discussions regarding Chinese naming conventions, the locus of this case as far as content is concerned, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood,_et_al.#Statement_by_Instantnood for links to a number of discussions. One which includes most of our protagonists is at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)/NPOV#Discussion_on_.23Political_NPOV. See also Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/Taiwan vs. ROC

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. The naming conventions are not the locus of the case. The locus of the case is Instantnoods revert and edit behavior all over Wikipedia, many of which have nothing to do with them. SchmuckyTheCat 23:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1. The conventions are at the heart of this case. Instantnood has always asserted that he's merely implementing the conventions. He may not have been right all the time and he may have gone about this in a suboptimal fashion, but those who oppose him have often reverted him in a way that seems to go against the naming conventions. It would set a bad precedent if one party would get sanctioned for violating one rule, and the other party would not be sanctioned despite good evidence that they violated different rules. --MarkSweep 05:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2.2) Concurrent with discussions on the talk page regarding several editors have inserted NPOV templates in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Political_NPOV including Jguk (talk · contribs) who on March 18, 2005 inserted a NPOV template into the section [1]; SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs), NPOV template, then NPOV-section template [2].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. I replaced the tag above the wording about mainland China. It is my understanding that jguk was objecting to the usage about Taiwan. SchmuckyTheCat 23:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1. Adding an NPOV tag to a policy/guideline page never quite made sense to me. It is my understanding that the point Jguk and SchmuckyTheCat were trying to make was that the "Political NPOV" section of NCC was somehow in violation of the more general, non-negotiable NPOV principle. The problem with that is that the NPOV principle is very general and does not provide any specific guidelines on how it should be applied to certain situations. The intent of the "Political NPOV" section of NCC is to provide specific recommendations in the Chinese political context, where certain terms and phrases are politically charged and where the whole real-world political dialogue is marked by deliberate ambiguity (see political status of Taiwan). --MarkSweep 22:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. I had reworded the text [3] while keeping the content intact after jguk added the tag. I removed it nine days later [4] since it appeared to me that there were no further complaints by the relevant parties on the talk page (jguk never returned to insist that the text was still pov). However, SchmuckyTheCat shortly reinserted the tag [5] with the edit summary "uh, mainland China is still under discussion as being POV." In the best of my knowledge, only two (2) users added the npov tag to the article during this dispute. --Jiang 03:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3) On January 8, 2005 202.61.114.80 (talk · contribs) made a sweeping proposal to change certain Chinese naming conventions [6] [7].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

3) SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs) strongly opposed use of the term "mainland China", terming it "absolutely meaningless semantic drivel" [8] [9].

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. This contention, on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions is unsourced while a number of links have been provided by Instantnood (talk · contribs) to instances of the term being used not only in Hong Kong but by the government of the People's Republic itself [10]. Fred Bauder

Comment by parties/SchmuckyTheCat:

1. It's drivel when it's repeated eight times [11] in a single article. The first sentence defines the geopolitical scope.
2. The term isn't defined well by anyone, which makes it meaningless in many applications. It's a term of convenience, so it's not surprising that the PRC occasionally uses it in speeches but it isn't an official term anywhere. Even when used as a term of convenience in official documents, the definition is limited (for instance it's used in the english translations of CEPA, but the footnotes are very careful to define it as "the customs territory of the People's Republic of China".
3. It's not an official term, it's a disambiguation term between PRC<-->Hong Kong or PRC<-->Republic of China. As above, no other country in the world is defined by a term of convenience by other countries or it's autonomous states.
4. SchmuckyTheCat 23:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Response to MarkSweep #1 below: Sure the term is defined, but it contains necessary ambiguity in words like "usually" and "sometimes". It IS a POV term, mostly used by people outside the PRC to define the PRC. There are very few cases when "mainland China" is a more appropriate term than "People's Republic of China" and yet that is exactly what the "content dispute" portion of this case is about. (because Fred Bauder in writing for the arbcom has focused on the content under dispute)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. The term usually has a very clear meaning in context. We have an article on mainland China which explains what the term means, and the naming conventions also suggest when it should be used. Calling it "meaningless semantic drivel" is not helpful, and reverting it because it isn't in one's personal dictionary is wrong, as the naming conventions allow or even encourage its use. --MarkSweep 05:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4) Instantnood (talk · contribs) who made his first edit on January 22, 2005 was apparently not new to Wikipedia editing as his first edits are relatively sophisticated, entering in mid conversation [12]. Beginning in January he began advocating use of the term "mainland China" in certain article titles and categories to refer to that portion of the People's Republic of China (including the offshore island of Hainan) which operates under the traditional economy and social system of the PRC. He opposes use of "China" by for that purpose [13], see also [14]. He would exclude instances where the language would be inappropriate [15]. Use of "Republic of China" rather than Taiwan in certain instances is also part of his proposition [16] [17] [18] [19] [20].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. I fail to see what Instantnood's first edits have to do with anything. In general, you basically see two situations: (1) person registers user name, starts experimenting and editing, which entails a certain number of newbie mistakes; (2) person starts experimenting and editing anonymously, registers user name later, which means they appear very sophisticated from the start. Neither situation should be held against anyone. --MarkSweep 17:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not, I'm just noting that he came on board familiar with ongoing issues. But was he 202.61.114.80 (talk · contribs) Fred Bauder 22:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

1. Distinguishing the terms "China" and "People's Republic of China" is hardly Instantnood's invention. The whole issue is certainly contentious in real-world politics (see One-China policy), but the idea that the relatively old cultural entity called "China" and the relatively recent political entity called "People's Republic of China" should somehow be distinguished is not only reasonable, but has been part of the relevant naming conventions for a long time. It is however the case that the terms suggested by the naming conventions have not all been implemented (perhaps due to general inertia), so Instantnood's suggestion should be seen as an invitation to remedy the discrepancies between existing articles and existing conventions. --MarkSweep 17:33, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I stumbled around a bit at first, but eventually realized the usefulness of both China and People's Republic of China. Jheijmans (talk · contribs), now Jeronimo (talk · contribs), took a much more POV line, see our discussion at Talk:China/old. Fred Bauder 22:02, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

After all this time Larry Sanger (talk · contribs) sounds quite sane and reasonable as he tries to guide the cat herd. Fred Bauder 22:16, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

5) Jguk (talk · contribs) emphasizes intelligibility of language to the average English speaker with emphasis on British users [21] [22] [23] [24].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. Jguk has been involved in issues of naming and terminology on more than one occasion. He generally disagrees with the conventions for titles, preferring instead what he calls "common names". [25] [26] [27] This seems to be part of a deeper issue that is very dear to Jguk, and it has had implications outside this case (see for example [28], [29], and the whole BC/AD vs. BCE/CE era name debate). --MarkSweep 17:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnood rarely uses edit summaries (see Special:contributions/Instantnood)

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. This seems to be true and calls for a remedy, especially in the case to naming convention changes. Fred Bauder 19:09, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) Instantnood is placed on revert parole. He may be briefly banned for any revert.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. That seems unreasonably harsh. Reverting in and of itself is neither right nor wrong, it's just a tool that can be used for good (reverting vandalism) or evil (revert wars). --MarkSweep 05:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2) Instantnood is placed on revert parole. He may be briefly banned for any revert which relates to Naming conventions (Chinese).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. This too is very harsh. First of all, has it been demonstrated that Instantnoods edits related to the naming conventions were unreasonable? Even if that was the case, the phrase "which relates to Naming conventions (Chinese)" is vague and open to interpretation/abuse: lots of things are related to the naming conventions because the conventions are broad and are intended to apply to all China-related articles. --MarkSweep 05:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3) Instantnood is required to make an informative edit summary on all edits, especially those which involve a change relating to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. That seems entirely reasonable and productive, and it is something that all parties should do. The question is, though, how would it be enforced? --MarkSweep 05:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1) It is alleged "Instantnood took the closure of the case as clear permission to continue the behavior at issue in the case. IE, renaming anything Taiwan to Republic of China (ex: [30] the article is at Education in Taiwan, not Education in the Republic of China, he's linking to a redirect in order to push his naming POV), renaming China to mainland China, [31] (again linking to redirects for his POV), populating dead categories [32] (and the previous diff too), and furthermore, marking most of these controversial edits as minor. He's also politicking to people who agree with him [33] in order to push the exact same issues that spurred the opening of the initial arbcom case."

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. This edit [34] seems a rather deft handling of Chinese governmental and geographical names. Fred Bauder 13:08, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
2. This cited edit [35] makes no sense as evidence. Fred Bauder 13:17, July 20, 2005 (UTC). Perhaps this edit [36], 2 previous, is the behavior being complained of (changing from category "Economy of the People's Republic of China" to category "Economy of mainland China" Fred Bauder 13:23, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
3. Conversation with other users about the arbitration case and about the Chinese naming issue seems unobjectionable User_talk:Umofomia#Issues_around_mainland_China_and_Republic_of_China Fred Bauder 13:26, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

2. The article Wen Wei Du Shu Zhou Bao was grouped under a wrong category [37]. I considered category:economy of mainland China sharper and more specific than category:economy of the People's Republic of China and therefore recategorised [38] it accordingly. This was not an example of moving an existing article in the PRC category to the mainland category. — Instantnood 10:23, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
3. Instantnood created the Category "Economy of mainland China" [39] while discussion about renaming articles from China/PRC --> mainland China was going on, which had no consensus to do any moves. He's been populating it ever since, and still is [40]. SchmuckyTheCat 23:49, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I miss some subtlety, but what is wrong with this edit [41]? Fred Bauder 14:20, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Economy of mainland China is a dead category. The proper category for economic policies of the PRC is Economy of the People's Republic of China. Note, and here is the subtlety, I don't object to the intro stating this is a PRC policy directing economic investment into the mainland, the objection is to the category. SchmuckyTheCat 17:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I would consider this edit nothing different from other edits that involved categorising an article, which had not been done by then, User:SchmuckyTheCat regarded it as populating what she/he considered a dead category. — Instantnood 15:06, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. This edit [42] did not "[link] to a redirect" since a pipe link was used and did not "Taiwan to Republic of China". Instead it added "Taiwan" in parenthesis after "Republic of China" for clarification. --Jiang 03:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2) One small part of the debate was over the Category "Economy of mainland China", see edit history of Category:Economy of mainland China and the Categories for deletion discussion and vote Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_June_24#Category:Economy_of_mainland_China.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs) uses a strawman argument in the debate at CfD, "there is no country named mainland China", but that is not the point of the term, see mainland China. Fred Bauder 17:37, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
2. Meanwhile Category:Economy of the People's Republic of China continues to exist. Fred Bauder 17:37, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. It is not a strawman argument at all, and many other editors have used the exact same phrase. There is no country named mainland China. If an article, or category is going to appear in "Foo by country" then I object to using such an innacurate name for the country. No other country on wikipedia is renamed according to regional terms used by outsiders. SchmuckyTheCat 18:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

3) There is an interesting exchange on STC's talk page User_talk:SchmuckyTheCat#.22China.22_and_.22Mainland_China.22. One item is this post by Instantnood, "Beijing serves as a rail hub for mainland China, but not the PRC. — Instantnood 23:06, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)". This seems to be simply argumentative nonsense. Another item is the post by Jiang (talk · contribs) "I have noticed that you are removing references to mainland China on a mass scale. While a number of these edits are improvements such as at Red Imported Fire Ant and have made the text more concise or accurate, many of these edits have either drastically altered the meaning of the text (e.g. Demographics of Brazil) or have violated NPOV and accuracy (e.g. U.S. 7th Fleet). Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) specifically states that it is preferable to use the neutral wording "Mainland China and Taiwan" rather than "China and Taiwan" because the latter suggests Taiwan is not part of China and the People's Republic of China is synonymous with China. Please respect the guidelines. If you believe they are inadequate, then please gain consensus to have them changed first. --Jiang 10:24, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)"

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I think there is evidence of automatic insertion of the preferred usage without thoughtful consideration of the context. To be sure Beijing is a railway hub of mainland China, but no information is added by that usage in preference to calling it a hub of the PRC. Usage of "mainland China" has its place, but it is not some general purpose sayzall (a neologism based on Sawzall. Likewise when Jiang, an experienced editor, is complaining, there is likely a problem with personal conflict over preferred usage interfering with constructive work. Fred Bauder 16:54, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. The difference here is that Jiang (or ran or insert any other China topic editor here) and I have been able to work semantics around when one of us disagrees with the other. Instantnood insists on revert wars and talk page filibustering. SchmuckyTheCat 23:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

[43] a lame edit war, Instantnood asserting that HK literature is not a subcategory of Chinese Literature, see Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars_ever#Ethnic_feuds.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. This edit by Instantnood [44] exemplifies his misunderstanding of categories. He cites the fact that some part of Hong Kong literature may not be Chinese related, thus not Chinese literature, to justify removal of the Category Hong Kong literature as a subcategory of Chinese literature. This is a misunderstanding of the function of categories as a guide to Wikipedia users in finding information; not definitive information in themselves, see Wikipedia:Categorization#User_browsing. Fred Bauder 12:14, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
2. This edit [45] by Huaiwei (talk · contribs) shows the same approach but reaching the opposite conclusion. Fred Bauder 12:19, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
3. Instanthood hangs on like a bulldog [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]. Finally Instantnood accepts the category Literature of China [51]. Fred Bauder 12:53, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
4. Huaiwei fights hard and finally prevails [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] Fred Bauder 12:53, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
5. Category talk:Hong Kong literature contains no talk about categories and what purpose they serve, just talk about the edit war. Fred Bauder 12:53, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. I accept it was my misunderstanding of the usage of categories, nevertheless I did not assert Hong Kong literature is not a subset of Chinese literature. Rather, my position is that, as you mentioned above [57], Hong Kong literature, though largely part of Chinese literature, is not entirely a subset of Chinese literature. Thanks very much Fred for pointing me to the relevant pages regarding the usage of categories [58] [59]. — Instantnood 16:38, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

[60] both involved parties (Instantnood and Huaiwei) go to 3RR.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. The above link is no longer good, but on July 25, the paged contained [[61]], a complaint by Instantnood against Huaiwei. Fred Bauder 13:27, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
2. This appears to be the correct link [[62]] which concerns the edit war on Category Literature of Hong Kong. Fred Bauder 13:27, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[63] Instantnood points out in his defense that he has five reverts in two days, but not four reverts in one day, making it obvious that he's gaming the 3RR rule by timing the reverts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Yes [64] does show that. While not requiring a block under the 3 revert rule it does violate the intent of the rule Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Intent_of_the_policy, "The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended as a means to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others.

If you find you have reverted a page more than even once in a day, it indicates there is a serious problem and you should try dispute resolution, starting with the article's talk page." Fred Bauder 13:41, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

1. STC's comment finds support in the Wikipedia guideline Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system#Gaming_the_system. Fred Bauder 13:44, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. In the recent conflict over List of companies in the People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), while the dispute resolution is in process at the talk page, User:Huaiwei kept editing the article according to her/his point of view. She/he also kept reverting my attempts to restore the articles to a version prior to the dispute took place, which contradicts her/his point of view that she/he could not accept. She/he also removed the {{twoversions}} tag which is supposed to be seen as a temporary truce, and should not be seen as an endorsement of any of the two versions [65] [66]. For the earlier case of category:Hong Kong literature, User:Huaiwei, as the person to make the first revert and her/his second revert within three hours, did not bring the issue to the talk page, which I would normally do if I am the person to do the first revert. — Instantnood 17:01, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Revert wars, even without 3RR, are disruptive to Wikipedia. Gaming wikipedia policy by timing reverts to not exceed 3RR in 24 hours is just as disruptive than breaking 3RR itself, it shows contempt of the spirit of the policy. (STC)

On June 14, 2005 Instantnood added links to the companies of Taiwan, Macao and Hong Kong to the see also section of List of companies in the People's Republic of China [67]. The link to list of Taiwanese companies was removed by an anonymous editor a few days later [68]. Huaiwei then moved the lists to the top of the see also section [69]. On July 19, 2005 Instantnood added the notice "This list is about companies in mainland China. For companies in Hong Kong and Macao, see list of Hong Kong companies and list of Macao companies." to the top of the page [70]. Huaiwei immediately removed it with the comment "Why would we need that notice when the links already exist in the page?" [71]. STC adds an explanatory note [72]. Instantnood reverts to Huaiwei's version [73]. Instantnood restores his notice [74]. Instantnood removes duplicate links and reinserts list of Taiwanese companies in see also section [75]. Huaiwei undoes Instantnood's work with the comment "Reverted back to original version. We dont need covert attempts to promote "Mainland China" all over wikipedia" [76]. Instantnood restores mainland China language [77]. Huaiwei again removes link with the comment, "This article clearly includes links to companies in the entirety of the PRC, so since when does it apply only to the mainland?" [78]. MarkSweep suggests a compromise [79]. GrandCru feels MarkSweep's suggested language is too confusing [80]. 61.61.254.9 reverts, terming GrandCru's edit "vandalism" [81]. GrandCru restores his version [82]. MarkSweep restores [83]. Huaiwei removes with the comment "rv right back to where it once was. No need to keep harping on the "mainland" thing when there are links to all companies in the entirety of the PRC" [84]. Dbinder differs [85]. Huaiwei restores [86]. Instantnood restores language and link to mainland China [87]. GrandCru reverts [88]. Dbinder reverts [89]. Huaiwei reverts [90]. Dbinder reverts [91]. Huaiwei revises list adding Hong Kong companies[92]. Dbinder adds Macau companies [93]. Intstantnood reverts with the comment "Reverted. The lists should never be merged into one. They are not companies of the same economy." [94]. Huaiwei restores integrated list [95]. Instantnood reverts [96]. Huaiwei restores [97]. Instantnood reverts [98]. Huaiwei restores [99]. Instantnood adds two versions template [100]. Huaiwei reverts [101]. Instantnood restores [102]. Instantnood defends use of two versions mechanism [103]. Huaiwei reverts [104]. Instantnood restores [105]. See Talk:List of companies in the People's Republic of China.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. Not all of these edits were made in good faith. GrandCru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a relentless POV pusher and long term sockpuppet master: see Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Long term alerts#User:GrandCru and sockpuppets. Labeling his edits as "vandalism" (perhaps even trolling) makes sense in the context of his other activities. --MarkSweep 21:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is alleged that Instantnood (talk · contribs) has advanced "massive voting proposals." Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/Taiwan vs. ROC appears to be a good example of this. Reference Wikipedia:Survey guidelines Wikipedia:How to hold a consensus vote.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. I'm not sure what rule is being broken here, other than "don't engage in outrageous behavior." Fred Bauder 19:21, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. How about disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? Or use common sense? Or know when to give up as wiki etiquette? There have been three of these of en masse attempts to rename these same (or roughly similar sets) of articles and categories. None of them have gained the consensus Instantnood wants, so he waits a few weeks, talking everyone's ears off while he waits, then re-proposes in some new quirky way. SchmuckyTheCat 18:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1. Please have a look at my prior comment at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al./Evidence#Why did Instantnood create so many polls?. I assume Instantnood was under the impression that polls on controversial issues would advance consensus. That assumption turned out to be incorrect, and the polls were ineffective (partly because partisan POV pushers engaged in sockpuppet voting and trollish disruption). While ineffective in this case, there's nothing directly wrong with creating numerous polls. There are a number of precedents for large-scale polls: Instantnood explicitly cited the case of Template talk:Europe, and the G?Dan[sz]i?[gk] polls and speedy deletion criteria polls are further examples. There are also many examples where polls failed to achieve a quorum or consensus and had to be repeated (e.g. the arbitration rules voting fiasco), or were repeated anyway (e.g. the latest GNAA VfD). --MarkSweep 21:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although not many are listed in the evidence in this matter it is alleged that Instantnood moved many pages. Looking through Instantnood's contributions a few can be found, for example a suggested move from Politics of Taiwan → Politics of the Republic of China [106] This also involved adding a move template at Politics of Taiwan [107]. The debate is at Talk:Politics_of_Taiwan#Page_move. Addition of related articles to the move "Same to List of political parties in Taiwan → List of political parties in the Republic of China and Elections in Taiwan → Elections in the Republic of China" [108]. Instantnood cites as authority for the move "Quoted from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese): "the word "Taiwan" should not be used if the term "Republic of China" is more accurate." Another was List of metropolitan areas in Taiwan → Metropolitan areas in ROC (Taiwan) [109]. Results of the debate, most opposing the move are at Talk:List of metropolitan areas in Taiwan.

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. As this move relates to the government of Taiwan, it seems to be reasonable, done carefully and according to procedure with authority cited. Edit summaries are sometimes not helpful. Fred Bauder 14:50, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Please refer to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al.#Request for Injunction, #Additional Requests for Movement/Injuntion and User:Instantnood/RFAr for lists of articles and categories User:SchmuckyTheCat have renamed, moved from a category to another, populated and depopulated while the previous case was in process. — Instantnood 15:13, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. I should point out that I recently carried out some of those moves (one of them just now) as part of an effort to make the entire series of articles on ROC politics internally consistent (it used to be that some articles were called "...in Taiwan" and some were called "...in the Republic of China"). The naming conventions and the distinctions described in the Taiwan and Republic of China articles leave us very little choice here. In the context of politics, one should mention "Republic of China" in some form (either alone or as "Republic of China (Taiwan)"). The phrase "elections in Taiwan" without any mention of the ROC is clearly less accurate and arguably more biased than the alternatives. --MarkSweep 22:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This case has been sitting here for quite a while now without being opened. I have urged my client to not engage in edit warring with the others involved. This certainly isn't stopping them from going through dozens of articles and POV pushing them and essentially ignoring the NPOV China Naming convention. It appears they have used this case to take advantage of the situation. As evidence, SchmuckyTheCat from 18 April alone:

• Economy of Asia

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. This edit seems reasonable as part of ordinary editing. Fred Bauder 16:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Pacific Rim

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. This edit seems off, inappropriately replacing mainland China with China in an economic context. Fred Bauder 16:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. The use of mainland here doesn't serve any use to disambiguate because there is no ambiguity of the term China in this context. I'd still maintain that China, whether the economic area of the PRC, HK or TW is well known as a source of cheap manufacturing labor. HK and TW may seem modern, but they still have no minimum wages and still do assembly line cheap labor manufacturing. SchmuckyTheCat 18:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• List of countries and territories by current account balance

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Replaces mainland China with PRC in an economic context (without changing the statistic) with strawman comment, 'there is no country named "mainland China"' Fred Bauder 16:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Not a strawman argument. There is no country named mainland China, period.
2. Response to MarkSweep below, there is no territory named mainland China either. By territory it refers to places like former colonies, dependencies, etc. As to the ambiguation, the population article has footnotes throught for nearly two hundred places. In a list that includes HK, I think it's reasonable to assume readers understand it's being treated seperately. SchmuckyTheCat 23:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

1. The argument is specious, because the article is called "list of countries and territories", not just "list of countries". But in any case, the real problem is that the list now contains an entry for the PRC as well as one for Hong Kong. Should we assume that the reader will infer that the figure for Hong Kong is not part of the balance listed for the PRC? One alternative would be to replace "People's Republic of China" with "People's Republic of China (excluding Hong Kong and Macau)", but something like "P. R. China (mainland only)" or simply "mainland China" is arguably just as clear and much shorter. --MarkSweep 23:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• List of countries and territories by reserves of foreign exchange and gold

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Same problem and comment as above. Fred Bauder 16:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• List of companies in the People's Republic of China (moved from list of companies in mainland China at 16:19, Apr 2, 2005 by SchmuckyTheCat)

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. An ambiguous matter. Fred Bauder 16:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. Not ambiguous at all. If the "Lists of companies by country" category is to be applied, the article should be named after the country, not a region, nor a term of convenience. SchmuckyTheCat 18:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2. (response to MarkSweep's comment at 23:00, 27 July 2005 below) Actually the key issue here is not whether they are different economic systems, namely capitalism and "socialism with Chinese characteristics", nor whether companies in Hong Kong has greater liberties. When people talk about origins of companies they're talking about entities or regimes that have the power to establish their own regulations, laws, tax, tariffs, customs, trade policies, etc., independently from other entities. These entities usually, but not always, correspond to the political boundaries of sovereign States. In this regard the reach of the ministries of the PRC, e.g. Ministry of Commerce, Ministry of Finance, and China Securities Regulatory Commission, is only within mainland China, and is not extended to the two special administrative regions. Further, the "customs territory of China", which the PRC government represents at the WTO, correspond to the territory of mainland China, i.e. does not cover Hong Kong and Macao. Therefore Hong Kong, Macao and mainland China are three entities. — Instantnood 20:33, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. There's no perfect solution to this one. Any company based in Hong Kong is necessarily based in the PRC. However, what's special about this situation is that the PRC comprises several different economic systems. Companies in Hong Kong used to have much greater liberties, compared with mainland companies. To the extent that it makes sense to distinguish these economies, it also makes sense to distinguish the companies on the basis of where they operate. This said, there will be cases where this distinction does not matter much, because a company has subsidiaries both in Hong Kong and in the rest of the PRC and effectively operates in the whole PRC. (On the other hand, there are also cases where a traditional company moved to Hong Kong before 1949 and continued to operate under their old name there, while new companies with the same name were founded in the PRC; one example is the publisher Shangwu Yinshuguan, which exists both in Hong Kong and in Shanghai.) --MarkSweep 23:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Economy of Germany

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Again a substitution of "China" for "Mainland China" in an economic context as the "fourth largest trading partner of Germany". Fred Bauder 16:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. What ambiguity is there to China in this context? None, as in all of these economic articles, most of which are bot-generated, Taiwan is Taiwan. SchmuckyTheCat 18:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• Economy of the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Again simple change from "mainland China" to China in an economic context, a violation of the naming convention. Fred Bauder 16:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. What ambiguity is there to China in this context? None, as in all of these economic articles, most of which are bot-generated, Taiwan is Taiwan. SchmuckyTheCat 18:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• Walnut, California

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Replaces "Many immigrants are from Taiwan, but there is a growing affluent Mainland Chinese expatriate population too." with "Many immigrants are from Taiwan, but there is a growing affluent Chinese expatriate population too." This replaces an awkward use of "mainland Chinese" with a strange juxtaposition of some immigrants being from Taiwan and others being "Chinese" when what is meant is that the other immigrants are from the mainland. Fred Bauder 16:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. No, there are ethnic Chinese that came with the fall of Vietnam, there are those that came with the handover of HK, there are second, third, even fourth generation whose parents came over before any of these names mattered. What they all have in common is they are Chinese. SchmuckyTheCat 18:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• San Gabriel, California

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Replaces "Mainland Chinese noodle and dumpling restaurants" with "Chinese noodle and dumpling restaurants". Quite reasonable. Fred Bauder 16:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Chinatown in Latin America

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Replaces "many mainland Chinese immigrants have come to Liberdade following the Communist revolution in 1949." with "many Chinese immigrants have come to Liberdade following the Communist revolution in 1949." (Mainland Chinese redirects to Mainland China). In this context there seems to be no need for a distinction between Mainland Chinese and Chinese. Fred Bauder 16:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. In studies of emigration of Chinese people the distinction between Taiwanese, Hongkongers and mainland Chinese is necessary, as they represent several different waves of emigration. They also represent slight but noticeable and substantial different cultural backgrounds, and, for some cases, different regions of settlements within the same city, or different destinations of emigration (e.g. San Francisco vs. Toronto). For the case of Liberdade, the distinction is necessary because it was the communist revolution that contributed to that wave of emigration, which most of the emigrants were from mainland China. — Instantnood 17:15, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
2. I might agree with Instantnood if the term wasn't already explained by context. During the chinese communist revolution, of course, there was no ambiguity with Taiwan/ROC. As to cultural, there are dozens of recognized ethnicities within China, which calling them "mainland" doesn't tell the reader anything about. From the POV of the reader, or the POV of latin america (the context of the article) it's all just Chinese. OTOH, in some instances the article goes on to do a a good job, especially for Macau, of making those cultural distinctions. SchmuckyTheCat 18:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• Economy of Togo

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Another change from mainland China to China in an economic context. Fred Bauder 16:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Economy of Sudan

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Another change from mainland China to China in an economic context. Fred Bauder 16:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Economy of Seychelles

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Another change from mainland China to China in an economic context. Fred Bauder 16:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Economy of South Korea

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. A good example of crude formulaic name changing as a change from mainland China to China occurs in a context where both Hong Kong and Taiwan are also significant. Fred Bauder 16:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Economy of Myanmar

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Another change from mainland China to China in an economic context. Fred Bauder 16:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Economy of Mauritius

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Another change from mainland China to China in an economic context. Fred Bauder 16:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Economy of Laos

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Another change from mainland China to China in an economic context. Fred Bauder 16:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

• Special economic zone of the People's Republic of China (from category:Mainland China to category:People's Republic of China, and from category:Economy of mainland China to category:Economy of the People's Republic of China)

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. It seems rather obvious that Category Economy Mainland China should be a subcategory of Category Economy PRC and that Special economic zones are a mainland thing. Fred Bauder 17:02, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties: SchmuckyTheCat

1. Disagreed, An SEZ is a PRC thing. Economy of mainland China is a dead and useless category. The economy of mainland China is the economy of the PRC. Would "economy of mainland China" exist in 1996? No. Does any other country with dependent territories have a seperate economic category for it's "mainland"? No. China has HK and Macau as it's special administrative regions - that doesn't rename the parent country.
2. Reasonable but imperfect? What does the naming convention say? USE THE OFFICIAL NAME. If this was a question in 1996 it would not be an issue. The PRC is the rule, HK and Macau are the exception. Cart, horse, etc. So you need a sentence of dab before the main body of the article explaining the seperateness, so what? The naming conventions say USE THE OFFICIAL NAME. You can't prefer "Republic of China" over "Taiwan" on the basis it's the official name and then turn around and use the unofficial name for the PRC. Whats good for Republic of China is good for People's Republic of China as geese are for ganders.

Comment by parties:

1. (response to MarkSweep's comment at 23:14, 27 July 2005 below) The problem here is two-layer, as MarkSweep may have already suggested implicitly. SchmuckyTheCat may agree that PRC comprises three different economies, while not agreeing with using the term "mainland China" to call "the rest". User:Huaiwei may not agree that they are three different economies, as reflected by his edits to include Hong Kong and Macao companies in the list of PRC companies [110], and added a section on Hong Kong and Macao in the economy of the PRC article [111]. The first question to be solved is that what to call "the rest". And the other is to clarify that the word "country" in this sense means economic entities, instead of sovereign States. When these two questions are solved, we can apply the same rule as a solution to non-economy topics where there is a distinction between Hong Kong, Macao and "the rest", for instance the list of cities in the PRC [112] that involves official designation and administration of local units. — Instantnood 20:57, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
2. (response to SchmuckyTheCat's comment at 21:57 and 23:31, 27 July 2005 above) To respond to the issue brought up by SchmuckyTheCat it is necessary to look into and compare how the statuses of dependent territories, and the relationship between dependent territories and their corresponding sovereignty holder are defined. The United Kingdom, which until today posesses, and had posessed in the past, the largest number of dependencies. These dependencies, overseas territories, colonies, dominions, protectorate, etc., are, however, never considered part of the United Kingdom. Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey are no exception. Another example, that I have cited for a few times in previous discussions at article talk pages, is the Netherlands. Aruba, the Netherlands, the Netherlands Antilles are defined as constituent parts of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Netherlands (i.e. the European part of the Kingdom) is conventionally listed as a sovereign State, while the other two are dependent territories. Greenland and the Faroe Islands, granted with home rule, seems to be part of the Kingdom of Denmark, according to the relevant articles on Wikipedia. It is uncertain if they are considered part of Denmark of not. Australian dependent territories are called external territories, but information on their distinctions with "mainland territories", namely Northern Territory and ACT is not provided in details on Wikipedia (see also talk:list of dependent territories#Australian territories). Åland is part of Finland. The term "Mainland Finland" is used for purposes when distinction between Åland and the rest of Finland is necessary (although the usage is often ignored owing to Åland's small size and population, in both absolute and relative terms).
   From the above examples we can see that the relation between dependent territories and their corresponding sovereign holders are not always defined in the same manner, and the terminology used is also not consistent. In the case of the PRC, Hong Kong and Macao are defined in their basic laws, the constitutional documents, as part of the PRC. The term "mainland" or "mainland of China" is used in the Basic Law of Hong Kong when a distinction is necessary between Hong Kong and "the rest" [113]. "Mainland" is used in the CEPA agreement, a trade agreement between Hong Kong and the Ministry of Commerce of the PRC, which represented, and has jurisdiction only to, the mainland, or the "entire customs territories of China" [114] (PDF format). — Instantnood 22:16, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1. Let's say, for simplicity, that the PRC comprises three different economies (with different laws, different restrictions on trade, capital flow, foreign investment, etc.), namely Hong Kong, Macau, and "the rest". The debate is essentially about what to call "the rest": STC prefers "PRC", Instantnood "mainland China". The problem is that both are reasonable but imperfect choices, contrary to what the parties in this dispute might claim. If we go with "PRC", we'll have to add disclaimers in lots of places that the economy of the PRC is really divided into several systems and that "economy of the PRC" usually excludes the economies of HK and Macau. If we go with "mainland China", then some may object that we cannot use that in "list of countries by X". The real problem is, of course, that the usual one-to-one correspondence between countries and economic systems breaks down here, which has occasionally been solved by not using article names such as "list of countries by (some economic attribute)" and instead using article names like "list of countries and territories by (some economic attribute)". --MarkSweep 23:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Chinese ecnomic reform (from category:Mainland China to category:People's Republic of China, and from category:Economy of mainland China to category:Economy of the People's Republic of China)

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Again, economic reform is a mainland thing Fred Bauder 17:02, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. same comment as the last.

Comment by others:

• Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (from category:Economy of mainland China to category:Economy of the People's Republic of China)

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. As the Closer_Economic_Partnership_Arrangement relates to integration of the mainland and Hong Kong economies, it would seem to belong in both categories as well as an appropriate Hong Kong category. Fred Bauder 17:02, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. While the arrangement does contribute to integration of the economies, the word "integration" has to be used carefully that it does not imply either Hong Kong or Macao, or both, would renounce their autonomy and independence in economic policies, regulations, customs, etc. because of this arrangement. The arrangement are trade agreements between Hong Kong and mainland China (the "customs territory of the People's Republic of China" to be exact), and between Macao and mainland China, respectively, as between different WTO members, or different economic, trade and customs entities. User:SchmuckyTheCat has taken this arrangement as an evidence of integration (note: his interpretation of "integration"), so as to change the coverage of various lists and categories, e.g. List of companies in the People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) [115] [116]. Other examples include (some are by Huaiwei (talk · contribs)) [117] [118] [119] [120] [121]. The List of airports in the People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is similarly disputed, with little acknowledgement of the fact that Hong Kong and Macao are independent customs territories, with their immigration regulations and transport policies (flights between Hong Kong or Macao and mainland China are international flights, Hong Kong and Macao conclude civil aviation agreements with other countries on their own). — Instantnood 17:48, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by the parties: SchmuckyTheCat

1. The CEPA article is in Economy of the PRC and Economy of HK categories, exactly as it should be. SchmuckyTheCat 17:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• List of companies in the People's Republic of China (moved from category:Companies of mainland China to category:Companies of the People's Republic of China)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I have dozens of more diffs from prior days that I can also bring forward, this is just a sample of one day of activity. My client is going to be criticized/have a case brought against him for actually asking people what they thought in a poll but this behavior of systematically making dozens of moves on a single day is not? We wish to counter against Schmucky's case, have this matter move forward and an injunction be issued prohibiting all parties from making changes to the naming of these articles, categories and creating of additional articles and categories until the case can be heard. --Wgfinley 18:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. My advoate User:Wgfinley advised me not to engage in edit warring, and refrain from editing on the disputed issues, while the previous case was in process. I took the advise. Over the period SchmuckyTheCat had renamed article titles, depopulated some categories and populated the others, including some she/he created, on a massive scale (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al.#Request for Injunction, #Additional Requests for Movement/Injuntion and User:Instantnood/RFAr), and Huaiwei changed the coverage of the economy of the PRC article [122] and list of airports in the PRC [123] after SchmuckyTheCat renamed them from China or mainland China to PRC [124] [125] (see User:Instantnood/RFAr#Update on April 13 for details). They had, no matter intentional or not, effectively taken the advantage of my refrainment to edit according to their points of view. Recently, Huaiwei has taken my refrainment as a sign of not opposing, and my recent revert to what articles are like and intended for before the conflict as sparking new dispute (from his comment at 15:13, July 27, 2005 on WP:RFP [126]). IMHO taking the advantage of an ArbCom case to assert one's point of view should not be encouraged, although strictly speaking no Wikipedia rule, policy or guideline was violated, and the other side (me) was refraining voluntary. Such behaviour could, in my opinion, be seen as signals of impatience and refusing to resolve the disputed issues through civil manners, by means of concensus building and by the established institutions of Wikipedia - the arbitration process. — Instantnood 22:56, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by others:

From Wikipedia:Requests for page protection July 27, 2005:

These two lists have been disputed and debated over their coverage, which are related to the usage of the terminology "mainland China" and the application of Wikipedia naming conventions on Chinese-related topics. While the issue is not yet settled, both lists have been edited and reverted for many times. I have applied the {{twoversions}} tag, attempted to put the edit warring into a temporary truce. Huaiwei (talk · contribs) and SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs) are not satisfied with the version chosen, and have misunderstood the meaning of the twoversions template, which should not be seen as an endorsement of any of the two versions. In order to stop the edit warring and to apply the twoversions tag successfully, I would like to request the two lists be protected with the tag applied. — Instantnood 18:15, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Protected the versions with the twoversions templates. Thryduulf 10:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to point out that the version with the two versions template is the version instantnood prefers, ie, the version which existed before the two pages were moved to a new title. This has been corrected quite some time ago, until Instantnood suddenly comes in and starts to revert them unilaterally and without warning. This resulted in the latest revert war, and instantnood took the opportunity to revert them all the way back to the version he prefered based on the old titles, plus adding a two version tag, an action which obviously endorses a version he prefers. I would therefore question the rational of protecting the two pages at their current versions.--Huaiwei 12:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not choose a version arbitrarily or according to my preference, but rather, as explained in the edit summaries, I restored to the version before disputes take place, i.e. what was the article intended for when it was created, and what it was like immediately before the disputes. By saying "this has been corrected" User:Huaiwei is asserting her/his point of view, and attempting to implement her/his point of view while the discussions are in progress. As for the title I would suggest administrators to add a notice informing readers that there is a dispute over the title of the article, in the following suggested format, for instance:
      There is currently a dispute over the title of this article, between list of something of mainland China and list of something of the People's Republic of China. The current title does not endorse, and should not be seen as an endorsement of, any of the two.
      — Instantnood 13:08, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • This conveniently ignores anyone else's changes to the articles besides one user, Instantnood. This is a request from a POV pusher to protect his version from the edits of at least three other people, and at least six have made smaller edits that are lost by this protection - because he makes no attempts to include subsequent change in his revert warring. Every other time Instantnood has come to this page the admins have seen through the fact that he is the one without consensus. This is a worthless protection and absolutely nothing will come from the discussion on the talk page because he - and only he - filibusters. SchmuckyTheCat 13:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

1. Here we have, locked in dispute, the current participants in this matter, all of whom need to be joined in the case and a remedy fashioned, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_2/Workshop#Motion_to_join_Huaiwei. Fred Bauder 14:26, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

1. You know that something is seriously wrong when a revert war is started over something like ((twoversions)), which is intended as a temporary measure in a larger ongoing revert war. I think Fred is absolutely right that all involved parties need to work together to overcome the current stalemate. Given that very little is at stake, the recent spate of reverts seems to indicate that a lot of them are knee-jerk reactions. The whole atmosphere is charged to a point where if one party makes any change, the other party will immediately revert. The first step will be to defuse the situation and bring it back down to a level where the editors will talk to each other. I hope someone will be able to think of a clever remedy that will ensure cooperation in the future. Restricting the number of reverts any user is allowed to make per day may be helpful, but may simply result in a slow-motion revert shoot-out if the underlying content issue remains unresolved. --MarkSweep 23:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by parties: SchmuckyTheCat

1. This is a general comment to issues that aren't addressed in the proposed decision or have current place on the workshop.

One of Instantnoods edit warring techniques is to generally be obstructionist. The most relevant guidelines/policies here are Wikiquette and Writers' rules of engagement. These go beyond simple "hard" rules like don't violate 3RR. They are designed so that editors can work towards agreement and consensus. They encompass ideas such as:

• Concede a point, when you have no argument against it. Declare when your disagreement is based on intuition or taste.
• Work toward consensus
• Don't filibuster

Regardless of the content of the edits, this is the behavior of Instantnood that is a problem. This is the cycle for discussions with him on talk pages:

1. A change is made by any editor. It results in a conflict (pro or con) with Instantnood.

2. Instantnood filibusters the talk page until most other editors give up.

3. If Instantnood doesn't gain the upperhand in the revert/edit war going on at the main article, he slaps a template such as twoversions or disputed on the article.

4. Conversation ends.

5. If anyone removes the template, because of obvious consensus that there is no problem or because it is stale, the edit war becomes over the placement of the template -- an issue far removed from the content itself.

6. Conversation is still over, or more filibustering occurs.

As noticed by ArbCom member Fred Bauder earlier in this Workshop there were two articles (List of airports of the PRC and List of companies of the PRC) which went to 3RR between Instantnood and Huaiwei, and finally the pages ended up being admin-protected against edits. Now that they've been protected, there has been zero discussion to get to an agreement. His versions are protected, he has no incentive to discuss it. It's not vandalism the pages are protected against, it is other editors (not even myself or anyone mentioned in this case) that can't edit. The protection is a week old, the versions protected are stale and revert other valid edits. He picked up his balls and went home.

At this point, there may be over 100 talk pages with all or part of this cycle on them. This is the exasperating part of dealing with him. This was, back in January or February, the cause of my run-in with him. I was a minor editor of the article on Hong Kong and suddenly found an ugly template on it about an edit war. I followed up by looking at other uses of that template and they were all occurences where he added them to a page and then went away without discussion. When I tried to research and verify the points of fact, I became embroiled in his disputes.

This point of fact in my original run-in was "Is the capitol of Hong Kong named Victoria City?" I thoroughly researched it. I provided verification from multiple sources[127], including multiple [128] sources within the HK government [129]. Instantnood accused me of making it up [130], refusing to concede anything. In the meantime the talk pages of Hong Kong and Victoria City were nearing 100k of text -- that conversation - and edit wars - took FOUR MONTHS.

The proposed decision from the ArbCom has to address that cycle above - whether he or I or anyone is right or wrong on any fact or content matter. Something has to break that cycle so that editors can move forward on articles, so that ugly templates don't appear on articles for weeks at a time (which READERS, remember why we are here, don't care about), and so that disputes can have a clear end.

Along with this, let me point out that nowhere else on Wikipedia when I experience POV pushers have I not been able to compromise, concede or otherwise work to an agreeable conclusion where claims are put in the mouths of the claimants and facts are verified, - as an example: Foie gras [131].

Comment by others:

1. I'd like to ask the ArbCom to consider the following issue raised by Jguk's complaint. There appear to be two conflicting guidelines: the convention on using common names, and the naming conventions for China-related articles. Jguk claims that "Taiwan" is the common name for the Republic of China and should thus be used according to the common names convention. Instantnood and others (myself included) claim that the naming conventions for China-related articles take precedence and that usage of names should follow those guidelines; this means preferring "Republic of China" over "Taiwan" in certain contexts. Could the ArbCom please comment on whether there really is a conflict between the two different conventions and, if there is, which one takes precedence? Note that the whole point of both conventions is to avoid repetitive debates (the "groundhog day" situation) and inconsistencies that would arise from treating the choice of names on a case-by-case basis. If the choice of conventions has to be decided on a case-by-case basis, the purpose of both conventions would be lost. --MarkSweep 18:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The policy which concerns the particular, naming conventions (Chinese), takes precedence over the general policy although it should incorporate it, which it does, for example, in its common sense use of mainland China. See also Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names)#Don.27t_overdo_it. Jguk, in my experience, has a skewed perspective. What the average Briton is able to understand is not a reliable guide to English usage. Fred Bauder 21:31, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Mmmmm - I wonder. What would an Englishman know about English?..... Is the English perspective skewed, but the Colorado one not skewed? I wonder, :) jguk 20:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. As far as I'm concerned, the central issue is this: How should the Chinese naming conventions be implemented? The events leading up to this case suggests that polls (though created with good intentions, contrary to what STC may believe) are not the right way. For one thing, they have attracted POV warriors with sockpuppet armies. Another flaw is that the users who voted in the polls were not all involved in the previous debates and did apparently not fully understand the issue being voted on: the issue was to determine the applicability of the naming conventions, yet a number of people ignored that and expressed disagreement with the naming conventions. (There is a general pattern here, clearly visible on VFD, of polls being doomed due to users voting on the "wrong" issue.) What are the alternatives? The polls were created because prolonged, heated debated failed to achieve any consensus (there was a similar problem with debate participants bringing up disagreement over the naming conventions, even though that was not the subject of the debates). What should be done when parties are unreasonably persistent, unreasonably stubborn, or simply unwilling or unable to focus on the core issues of the debate? --MarkSweep 18:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think more weight should be given to the opinions of Chinese users and those who regularly edit in this area, including those familiar with English usage. While it will be difficult to arrive at a consensus I see no insurmountable barrier. Fred Bauder 21:31, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to propose a remedy banning Instantnood outright from poll-creation. I can think of no issue that requires a poll a week, and I think that if the issue does require a poll, plenty of other editors can and will start one. Phil Sandifer 20:25, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]