Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statement by Wgfinley[edit]

Schmucky's points are well taken. However, I feel that Huaiwei should be enjoined in this action as well neither of them have gotten the message that the edit warring has to stop. Instead, it has only spread. I do not agree that Instant is always looking to start a war but the three cases pointed out by Schmucky are telling and I promptly banned Instant from editing those cats when I read this filing.

However, Schmucky correctly dealt with this situation by filing Arb (although I think he could have also notified an admin). Huaiwei never acts in such a thoughtful manner, he too has initiated re-ignition of old debates [1] [2] [3] [4], prefers to follow Instant about reverting him [5] (an interesting case where Schmucky started it actually), refusing to stop the edit warring [6] [7] [8] and in general ignores any pleas ([9] [10] [11]) for him to stop. Before this recent round of bans he has been banned from 10 articles by three different admins [12] with no signs of stopping. Instead of heeding the pleas for him to stop he chooses to engage in lengthy debates about it with whichever admin will make the mistake of trying to talk to him about it [13] [14] [15].

Unfortunately I am afraid all efforts to get both Instantnood and Huaiwei to reform their behaviors have failed and more drastic measures are required. --Wgfinley 19:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion by TenOfAllTrades[edit]

There's already a motion down below to extend the Instantnood and Huaiwei probation to cover all articles (not just China-related ones.) Might I suggest additional motions of the approximate formula

Should Instantnood/Huaiwei engage in edit warring, they may be blocked for up to one week by any administrator. After the fifth such block, they may be blocked for up to one year...

or something to that effect? It would save the paperwork of opening another ArbCom case, could be tacked on to Instantnood 2, and would get this section off the RFArb page. If the ArbCom wants to address any other issues(?) beyond the edit warring, then this suggestion perhaps wouldn't work. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of my opinion towards the above suggestion, I had been blocked for two weeks, and user:Huaiwei is currently under a ten-day block [16]. — Instantnood 08:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7 Day Blocks[edit]

Given their continued and incessent edit warring and article bans at a clip of more than one a day I have blocked both Instantnood and Huaiwei for 7 days effective immediately. Notice has been posted on their talk pages [17][18] , on AN/I [19] and on their block/ban log from their probation ruling [20]. --Wgfinley 20:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Instantnood sockpuppet blocked for evading this block, with an open announcement that he was doing so. Alai 19:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have clearly stated why it has to be done. (P.S. Is there any way that I can request to delete the account and merge the edit history? Thanks.) — Instantnood 20:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is apparantly no reason good enough for evading an IP block.--Huaiwei 21:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No good reason, and apparently no meaningful consequence either. SchmuckyTheCat 21:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No matter you agree or not, I've clearly stated why it was necessary to do so. If the technology of the Wiki software allows, blocked users should be allowed to take part in discussions that have time limits that she/he has joined prior to the block. Or else, alternatively, the discussion should automatically be extended. — Instantnood 21:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that RFARs are required to conclude in a specified time period. Even if so, I'm sure the arbitrators would have sufficient common sense to allow for reasonable time for your response. enochlau (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I did was putting some evidence to a CfR discussion. It has a time limit. — Instantnood 08:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wgfinley on Huaiwei[edit]

wgfinley has made a suggestion in the filing that Huaiwei be included. His suggestion was moved to this talk page. On the evidence page, he's including evidence against Huaiwei. Can we get some instruction from ArbCom about whether Huaiwei is included?

I'd really prefer that Huaiwei not be included and suggest that if wgfinley has a case to make against Huaiwei's action that he bring up a case against him. The last ArbCom case was a huge mess that took a record amount of time to complete partly because it was trying to involve anyone and everyone. In this case against Instantnood I really tried for clarity and brevity, and not adding extra people or throwing every possible charge at them. wgfinley's evidence overwhelms that. SchmuckyTheCat 18:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may say so, I think that if this case were to exclude Huaiwei, the result would be manifestly unfair as it may result in additional constraints on Instantnood while relieving Huaiwei of the scrutiny he deserves. While you may suggest that this case be restricted to Instantnood for clarity, Instantnood's actions, at times, arise from his interactions with Huaiwei; Instantnood's actions should be considered in their proper context. enochlau (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do hope a quick decision may be made with regards to my status in this case. Thanks!--Huaiwei 21:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Huaiwei is "relieved of the scrutiny he deserves" then open a case against him. Huaiwei is only one of half a dozen wikipedians to have regular run-ins with Instantnood. Sure, he's under the same prohibitions, but other users are involved with more revert wars than Huaiwei. It's clear the center of the controversy is 'nood. Including Huaiwei and other users in this case makes a big giant spaghetti mess. So I say again: if there is a case against Huaiwei, myself, or anyone else, make that case separately. I'd like Instantnood looked at independently, please. SchmuckyTheCat 21:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irrespective of my position, it has to be pointed out that the arbitrators had not expressed their support, or opposition, towards the request to include user:Huaiwei. Clarification is necessary. — Instantnood 09:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

I would like to request the arbitration committee to reconsider the opening of the case. I have had limited access to computer over the past fortnight, and hardly had any opportunity to draft a statement for submission. I was blocked for a week starting from January 24, and the case was opened within the period when I was blocked. The case should not have proceeded, to avoid any unfairness. Thank you very much for your kind attention. — Instantnood 20:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above mentioned case was opened at the same time within which I was blocked for the same period as well. Any tardiness in responding to the above case, and in the provision of evidence, is not neccesarily an influential factor, nor should it be deemed as ample reason to prevent a hearing of the case in question which has long crossed the tolerance level of many, including myself.--Huaiwei 20:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously. Do you think a case can be opened when (a) respondent(s) was/were denied from exercising their rights? Would the consideration process be fair and just under such condition? — Instantnood 21:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bro, you had a almost four days of editing between my filing it and you being blocked. I even asked you to respond a second time [21] and you didn't. Instead of going on revert sprees, maybe you could have taken some time to respond. SchmuckyTheCat 20:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said, I had limited access to computer during that period, including the almost four days you mentioned. I was able to make some quick and easy edits with my limited contact to computer, but I hardly had any time to sit down and draft a statement. I was unable to submit the statement before the block was imposed, and the case was opened already before the 7-day block ends. That's a pitfall of such a long block, and yet nobody, user:Wgfinley nor user:Kelly Martin neither, has taken this into consideration. — Instantnood 21:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, start doing something to the case now, before you get banned again. [22] SchmuckyTheCat 21:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The case should not be proceeded when its opening is contested. — Instantnood 21:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? A case has been opened - how can you contest its opening? So what if you hadn't had access to the computer? Just write your statement now that you've been unblocked, and let the process continue. enochlau (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have the right to submit a statement at anytime before its opening. As a result of the block, I was denied from exercising my right, and my statement was not possible to be put forward to the consideration of the arbitrators when they're making their decisions. In other words, the procedural appropriateness of its opening, and consequently, fairness and justice of the arbitration mechanism, was not fully guaranteed. I cannot submit the same statement now, pretending that the case hasn't been opened, and the evidence finding and workshop stages have not yet been started. — Instantnood 08:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to request to pause the arbitration process, until the appropriateness of the opening of the case is studied, and justice is guaranteed. It should not have continued, for I was denied the right to have adequate time to draft and submit my statement before the case began. — Instantnood 18:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And since it was opened, and continued to evidence, and proposals at workshop, and is now at proposed decision, and the entire time you've refused to participate even though you've been asked to by myself, huaiwei, enochlau (who tried to help you), and wgfinley (who also wants to help you). You've had plenty of opportunity to be heard.
Besides Wikipedia has no gaurantee of due process nor "user rights". This projects goal is to write an encyclopedia. If your behavior is disruptive to that goal then it is going to be checked. Useful contributors are given wide latitude, good faith, and courtesy, but not "rights". Please don't continue with this false expectation that you "have the right to submit a statement at anytime before its opening". Your protests about it's opening has been ignored and it will move on to a ruling that will potentially ban you permanently. That's even more punitive than any proposed remedy I proposed, so please participate so it doesn't occur. SchmuckyTheCat 18:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I bet nobody would dare to echo your claim that was effectively implying justice of the arbitration mechanism is not guaranteed. There's in fact a set of Arbitration policy. FYI, I've explained above why I chose not to submit my statement after the case has procedurally inappropriately been opened. — Instantnood 19:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I bet they did, your case has progressed without your participation. SchmuckyTheCat 19:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lifting of Huaiwei's editing restrictions[edit]

(Copied from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration)

Discussion[edit]

The arbitration committee has closed the above case.

Restrictions applying to Huaiwei:

The above is the shorthand restrictions placed on Huaiwei after an ArbCom case more than a year ago. Several months ago, it was found that Instantnood was not only being generally disruptive but also running farms of sockpuppets to disrupt votes/discussions and Instantnood is now permanently banned. Huaiwei hasn't been in any other kind of dispute resolution before or since the Instantnood issues.

It's clear to me that while Huaiwei was wrapped up in Instantnood's belligerence (as were a half dozen others on the periphery) it was Instantnood's wiki-stalking of Huaiwei (which continues with sockpuppets even now) that caused the problem, and not a general problem with Huaiwei as an editor. Without the instigation of a bad actor, Huaiwei is an excellent and dedicated Wikipedian who has been with the project for several years. These restrictions and potential punishments hang on him like an albatross.

I'd like ArbCom to review Huaiwei's contributions since the permanent banning of Instantnood and remove the previous restrictions.

SchmuckyTheCat
  • You mean, like, the six blocks for edit warring he's received since then, most recently a month ago? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Instantnood was banned on 16 April. Huaiwei was blocked only one time after Instantnood was banned. --Kaypoh 09:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, Huaiwei has one 3rr with one user that is not Instantnood. I think the sequence of that one was, slow revert, Huaiwei realized he went over and reported it, both got blocked. He was also using the talk page to try and work out what was going on with someone belligerent.
One instance does not justify such harsh restrictions. SchmuckyTheCat
Well, that one instance is not the justification, the entire history is. I'd like to see three clean months before I support lifting the restrictions, though. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that in a similar situation recently, the committee voted that someone's probation from a prior case would be ended if he remained out of trouble for a specific period of time. That might work here. Newyorkbrad 16:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motion[edit]

I move that the restrictions, now over a year old, from the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3 case on editor Huaiwei be lifted. While Huaiwei appears to have been involved in some edit wars and has received a number of 3RR blocks, I do not believe that the probation and limits on participation remain relevant at this point. (Proposed by arbitration UninvitedCompany

Passed 6 to 4, 19:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Instantnood_3&oldid=156109571"