User talk:Dominic/Mediation

Okay, the subpage has arrived. Just for fun I'm going to copy all the scattered responses on all of your talk pages here (but you should still reply in the normal area). For right now, I'm going to make a "general discussion" area that will be the stuff on my talk page where most of the discussion has gone on. I'll make that into a subpage and transclude it into my talk page, so for the time being, you can still go there to respond.

General discussion

This is now a subpage transcluded here. You can either just use section editing and edit below or go to User talk:Dmcdevit/Mediation/General discussion, or User talk:Dmcdevit/Mediation for all of it. Dmcdevit·t 03:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I made subsections just for coherence. I just arbitrarily made up the heading names, and they're only supposed to be explanatory. Dmcdevit·t 03:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies in the PRC

Ever since the article was unprotected, the have been contests on which of the two disputed versions should be displayed [1]. The displayed version throughout the protection period was chosen based on what the old title of the list and what the list was intended for before all those disputes [2] [3]. User:SchmuckyTheCat and user:Huaiwei have refused to keep that version displayed, and have insisted to display the version that they prefers [4] [5] [6]. I'd like to hear from your advice on what I should do. Thanks. — Insta ntnood 16:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to take this opportunity to point out (for the sake of balance in arguments), that moments after Instantnood was nominated for a 3RR violation [7], he has taken to re-igniting past disputes through a variety of pages, most of which he listed above for your reference. Most of these pages will show that he was the first editor who triggered the latest rounds of edit warring, and even after the rounds of reverts, he has not seen it neccesary to conduct any form of discussion on them. I certainly do hope that he would accept your suggestions for conducting proper dispute resolution, instead of habitually relying on edit warring.--Huaiwei 17:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Dmcdevit. In fact Huaiwei, SchmuckyTheCat and I have been talking, here and there, nearly everyday throughout the past few months. There was never any middle ground between Huaiwei and I, and we kept being stuck in arguing on this and that, from the definitions of country, around the term mainland China, to the spellings of Macao/Macau. I appreciate you're going to help us and help Wikipedia, but frankly, I remains pessimistic towards the possibility of reaching a true resolution. The lists of companies and airports are the best examples that the other party is not even willing to armistice, and have insisted to keep their prefer version displayed. They are not even hearing my rationale (to display a version according to what the articles were intended for and were like before the disputes and contentious edits), that has worked with the list of railways in China and national dish. — Insta ntnood 21:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take the lists of airports and railways as examples to illustrate. This is the version prior to the contentious edits ([8] [9] [10]) by Huaiwei and SchmuckyTheCat, and this is the version that was chosen to be displayed, according to my policy (compare). In another example, the list of railways, this is the version prior to the edits ([11]) that I've made and Huaiwei and SchmuckyTheCat doesn't agree, and this is the version that I've displayed (compare).

Both articles involve the inclusion of the items of Hong Kong. The airport list started under the title "list of airports in Mainland China", and included airports in mainland China only ([12] [13] [14]). The railway lists started under the title "list of railways in China", with Hong Kong included ([15]). For the first list I didn't include Hong Kong in the displayed version, and for the second one I kept Hong Kong.

I believe I've done all these firmly according to my policy, and have done more than enough to showing impartialness when choosing a version to be displayed. I don't have to do what I have done with the list of railways in China, national dish and Electronic Road Pricing if I were insisting to display my preferred versions like they do.

And, for your information, I have also approached user:Thryduulf, who was responsible for protecting the lists of companies and airports last time. (Please response on my talk page. Thanks.) — Insta ntnood 22:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about an armistice. It's about keeping the wikipedia open. When 'nood requests page protection that lasts for a month simply to keep his own edits (or whatever edits, really, it doesn't matter) it ignores the rest of the community. Page protection is not there to maintain a status quo. It's a wiki, and articles change. If his choices and preferences aren't maintained by the community then his duty is to go to the community to gain concensus, and not to appeal to administrative authority to protect his POV. SchmuckyTheCat 22:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- (reply) re: Dispute resolution. There is an ArbCom case. It's stale, because ArbCom sees the majority of it as content disputes. I've been involved in plenty of edit wars with him, as have dozens of other people. Here's the pattern 1) edit war 2) game a 3RR 3) slap twoversions template up 4) request page protection. There are people who agree with him on some POV issues, but all of those people are willing to discuss. He doesn't. He lawyers the "rules". When even the dispute is stale (like several months since anyone discussed it) he'll revert war just to protect the template which references the dispute - instead of going to the community (including those that agree with him) to ask for concensus. It's apparently his goal to simply be a one-man block to community editing if it disagrees with him. SchmuckyTheCat 22:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huaiwei and STC summaries

I usually would respond in my talk page, but I will make an exception here just to keep the discussion in one place for convenience sake.

As STC points out above, and what instantnood admits too, "discussions" do exist, and has been so for the past 10 months. Unfortunately, it is apparant no one is willing to move from their stated positions, probably because the underlying issue is one we holds rather "dearly"? Still, I have noticed all these while, that instantnood has been far from being forthright in revealing his motivations here, perhaps for fear of the expected backlash it is going to create. It is plain obvious, however, that it all begins and is still centered over the status of Hong Kong on the international arena.

Instantnood viewpoint (at least based on what he has said over the past months, and from his editing histories and patterns), is that Hong Kong should be listed distinct from the People's Republic of China, be it in the form of a country list, in the form of articles (he insists on one article for HK, and the other for the "rest of China" aka "Mainland China"), in the form of categories, or even stub templates and so on. It has been noted, that his entry into wikipedia using his current username appears too sophisticated to be a newbie. I first waged war with an anonymous user for about a month or two over how airports should be listed in Category:Airline destinations's articles, insisting that HK should appear distinct from the PRC. This person dissapeared, and instantnood appeared, basically advocating exactly the same thing. This tussle quickly spread to other pages, with basically the same phenomena.

My view, as I openly declared in my user page (User_talk:Huaiwei#Hong_Kong-related_Articles_2), has been that I am highly suspicious of anyone attempting to challenge Chinese sovereignty over all its territory, including exagerating the political status of an entity beyond what can be considered acceptable. While I openly state my position consistently over the past months, instantnood avoids doing so, often choosing to revert when I revert his edits, or when I subsequently went ahead and simply started modifying the way HK is presented. After much effort, it finally came to the fore, that he admits calling Hong Kong a country, "using the definitions as specified in list of countries": User_talk:Vsion#Re:_Hong_Kong_as_a_country.3F, User_talk:Instantnood/Archive_3#Hong_Kong_as_a_country.3F

The rest of the associated arguments starts to fall in place, because they are mostly related. The big fight over the status and usage of Mainland China is related to the fact that Instantnood wants to use it, so that Hong Kong will be listed seperately, compared to the term People's Republic of China which would have included Hong Kong. Of course, instantnood never admits to this motive when arguing intently for its use, but the edit patterns are quite clear beyond reasonable doubt.

We argued for months over whether Hong Kong is just one city or composed of many, just because instantnood wants to keep List of cities and towns in Hong Kong in List of city listings by country. Ditto for List of cities and parishes in Macao. And when the arguments over the so-called "cities of Hong Kong" hots up, another major fight breaks out over whether Victoria City is a "capital city" of Hong Kong or not.

Most other arguments are merely over how Hong Kong should appear in articles (from anything as diverse as Value added tax to List of cathedrals), although they start to accumulate into yet another debate over whether Hong Kong is a dependency or not (because Instantnood is quite desperate about keeping it in List of countries, a list which includes dependencies). After rounds of cat fights which was (kind of) settled only after User:Vsion sent an email to the HK government asking if HK is a dependency and was told simply that HK is an SAR (which Instantnood then attempts to dismiss), list of countries suddenly evolves into one which includes places of "special sovereignty". Almost overnight, instantnood drops the debate over Hong Kong's status as a dependency, and has never uttered about it since.

Like a constant "side show", war is still being waged over the categorisation system. Having fought (and lost) several content wars, instantnood, while helping to build a categorising system for Hong Kong, conveniently took the time to basically dis-engage as many HK-related articles from Chinese ones as he can, and dilligently adds as many of these articles to country-relevant categories as possible.

On a side note, there has been several disputes more related to "local pride" then anything else. Such as the fights over whether Cantonese or Mandarin page titles should be used. Over whether food served in one place is similar to another. Over the order in which chinese scripts should be listed. Sometimes, the arguments simply bother on the edge of ridiculousness. The debate over Hong Kong-style milk tea was particularly interesting.

And so he adds Cathay Pacific as a "national airline", which I later removed (nothing officially states that the airline is a flag carrier of any kind). Argues that the Hong Kong Central Library is a "national library", which I demanded for documentary proof and which non was forth coming. Calls the Flag of Hong Kong a National flag, even thou it is officially known as a regional flag. (Btw, just noticed an offensive entry in National emblem. hehe) National dish became another hot playground, over whether Hong Kong should be listed seperately, and what dish should appear on it. "Abuses" the Wikipedia:Requested moves to get Hong Kong representative football team renamed back to Hong Kong national football team (people usually ask for votes for a move, not for a move to be undone).

As we speak, something as casual as National pastime becomes a hotseat, when its relevant Talk:National pastime has reached 38 kilobytes long as at the time of writing this, over something which should have been discussed long ago...just what, then, is a country. Observe the to and fro responses made. Concurrently going on, is another long essay writing session in Talk:List of official languages by state, which started off as yes another presentation dispute before evolving into one over just what a "language" really is.

In the earlier stages of this dispute, forms of "discussions" did take place, but often collapses into an endless to-and-fro trading of comments with no real signs of anyone willing to come to any form of agreement. By what instantnood says above, it is clear, that he has taken this failure to therefore skip the discussion process and to simply proceed to conduct edits. Occasionally, he feigns ignorance, claiming he didnt even think his edits were "contentious", like how he claims he "didnt know" there was a spelling disagreement over Macau/Macao Category_talk:Railway_stations_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China.

The above is my rumbling summary of 10 months worth of disputes, but I hope the gist of the arguments is relatively clear. In the end, strong POVs over political issues spills over into related topics, although they rarely stray very far from it. I all along believe it all boils down to differing political viewpoints, but it takes two hands to clap. Instantnood has been unwilling to admit that he has a political viewpoint, perhaps for fear that it will greatly weaken his standing and his room for "squeezing and twisting" around here. But if he continues to pretend that he has no political viewpoint, then how can dispute resolution begin?

In any form of dispute resolution, there has to be a give and take situation. I have constantly asked him....how much is he willing to give up for the sake of establishing a middle ground, and I clearly remember him saying "certain things" are not within discussion because "there's always something that you cannot surrender" a very long time agoUser_talk:Mailer_diablo/Archive_B#Instantnood...again. He further insists that "non-locals" will "never be as familiar as the locals", and should accord due "respect" to locals. I found such comments highly immature, and gives a good clue of just how stubborn he is at heart. I suppose we dont need much guessing as to just what that "something" which he cannot surrender is?

Hong Kong's position in the world, of couse.

I know my text is long, and I apologise for this, but I do hope the above text could at least give you a (admittedly biased) quick overview of what has happened thus far. Nothing is beyond hope, and nothing cannot be resolved, if all parties are serious, committed, and believe it can happen. I believe it can happen. Perhaps now we just have to wait for Instantnood to realise it can happen too?--Huaiwei 00:19, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huaiwei hits something on the head, which we've both brought up repeatedly in other disputes. Instantnoods problems aren't with content. They are with presentation [read the text of the footer in this edit [16]. There are lots and lots of good editing going on when editors conflict over nationalism and religion. Lots of international issues turn into wikipedia flareups with POV - and the best way to combat POV is to present all POV. Instantnood goes straight for the things that bind wikipedia together though, because it's a battle for him to present Hong Kong to be as independent as possible. So his presentation battles go towards categories, stub-sorting, templates, and article titleing - ie, things we can only have one of.

You also asked him if his use of twoversions is permanent or temporary. I think I have an answer to that. Two, actually. First answer, for the template, is that it would be temporary as long as he gets his way (that's an answer only half in jest.) The second answer is that there is something more subtle than that as well. He does intend to use that template in order to present his parallel versions of articles - a schizoprenic wikipedia. Besides the twoversions templates, he has a series of articles in his userspace User:Instantnood/Sandbox where he "preserves" his versions. Totally acceptable, of course. However, for a while he made a blatant play to present his alternatives and link to them from the main wikipedia article namespace [17] (notice how he simultaneously plays belligerent "I'll add it back now" and ignorant "Nothing says I can't!"). I'd contend that the twoversions template is just another method for him to maintain a parallel article structure in his presentation style. SchmuckyTheCat 04:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnood's response/summary and Huaiwei's response

My response would be succinct, with diff links whenever they're helpful.

These are all content disputes, but it's more to do with behaviour of some wikipedians. Take the lists of companies and airports for example, user:Huaiwei and user:SchmuckyTheCat changed the scope ([18] [19]) and titles ([20] [21] [22]) of these two lists without any discussion, and has refused to restore them according to their original intent. They know well it's going to be contentious. SchmuckyTheCat has also moved some articles previously retitled "..mainland China" (e.g. education in mainland China [23] [24]) by user:MarkSweep, now an administrator, again, without any discussion.

I remain highly skeptical towards their willingness to reconcil on anything. While a long discussion has been in place at talk:list of official languages by country, fire was sparked at list of official languages [25]. Huaiwei also spark fire at national pastime [26], although he knows it's debatable. Other articles, lists nad categories, to name a few, category:healthcare in Hong Kong [27], category:law enforcement in Hong Kong [28], category:law enforcement in Macau [29], and there are many more that I cannot name them all.

Many articles specific to mainland China already exists before I joined Wikipedia in January, although by then most are titled "something in/of China", with some having a disambiguation notice telling readers the articles are about mainland, and provide links for readers to proceed to the articles on Hong Kong, Macao and ROC/Taiwan. It was not me who request for separate articles for mainland China and Hong Kong as Huaiwei has asserted. They already existed. Almost all categories titled "something in/of China" or "Chinese something" by then were mainland China-specific, until Huaiwei started making the Hong Kong and Macao counterparts subcategories of them. Yet he disagreed with moving the mainland China-specific content to categories titled "sth in/of mainland China".

Contrary to his claims, territories with special statuses were on the list of countries at the early stage when it's created [30] [31]. What was suddenly evolved?

The {{nationalflags}} template has been existed on flag of Hong Kong since February 29 2004 [32], until removed by Huaiwei on [33] July 5 2005. This is again a pushing of his point of view that the word "national" is exclusive to sovereign states.

Dmcdevit, I understand it can be tough for you to look into so many details of the conflicts spanning over nine months across so many entries. It has been so nice of you to be willing to help us. The above may perhaps be a tip of iceberg, and surely it will take tremendous amount of time and effort to have everything resolved. For the meantime, I'd suggest to start their switching to their preferred version at the lists of companies and airports. Thank you. — Insta ntnood 09:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite tempted to comment on instantnood's entry above, but maybe I will just let the urge past for now. Meanwhile, I would just like to indicate my full willingness to coorperate and to basically avoid adding/amending/deleting any article/category/stub/etc related to presentation issues related to Hong Kong/Macau; the spelling format of Macau/Macao, the use of People's Republic of China/Mainland China, etc, to allow negotiations to begin. To encourage compliance, I would also like to propose, that whoever breaks this commitment should receive disciplinary action in some way, perhaps in terms of a block or something.

I certainly hope that STC and instantnood may similarly agree to comply (and I do hope no one then quickly starts making funny edits before agreeing), although I suppose instantnood may find this a little too hard to do, since, as like what User:OwenX mentioned in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Instantnood, instantnood's participation in wikipedia has more or less been on "one topic in which almost all his edits are" about.

Btw, I will attempt to give a more complete answer for the role of STC later...as I am kinda "mentally sapped" now. Hope you do not mind the delay, and once again, I must thank and commend you for your efforts here. Few administrators has been willing to take this up, and for good reason, and few has managed to come this far. It saddens me when admins give up, and I will give all I can in my hopes that your efforts will not be futile.--Huaiwei 16:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About the "ceasefire"

Sorry I did the revert before seeing your reply. Of course I'm most willing to stop the reverts. Yet it would be ridiculous for the other party to make such promise while insisting that their preferred version shall always prevail, and have successfully turned the pages to display their preferred versions at the present moment. Thanks again for your kind efforts. — Insta ntnood 10:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: cease-fire. Sorry I didn't answer earlier, I'm mulling. I am somewhat interested in this. It has been proposed before in a way I rejected entirely. It probably makes me out to be not a team-player that I'm hesitant, doesn't it? I suppose I can agree as long as progress is being made. If an edit has been sitting for awhile, it's not really going to hurt to leave it - though with his thousands of edits, I consistently run into things (often unexpectedly) that just scream. And, I'll just back out if 'nood starts lawyering this, or if he starts creating new POV things and whines about being reverted under this gentlemans agreement. If we have a no-revert agreement than the advantage is to the one that inserts the content, which he does faster than either Huaiwei or myself can even read. SchmuckyTheCat 01:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your concern, STC, hence my declaration above that I will not even ADD disputable content, and I hope all will comply too. This mean no one should add or remove HK from country lists for now. No one should modify the way it is being listed. As far as is humanely possible, lets avoid writting about Macau/Macao for now. Alternatively, we can have a more honest and transparant system to allow content to continue to flow: by having a page which we list all edits in which we feel may be potentially contentious, but have to be added for the time being for the sake of content expansion. For example, if we want to create a new article on a chuch in Macau, then go ahead and do it using whatever spelling prefered, but list this article also in that "tracking" page so that all of us know the author is not attempting to be "sneaky" and is doing out out of good faith. This helps to encourage responsible editing, and increase trust between members.

So if we are going to have this list, then perhaps may I also suggest that we create a single page for all related discussions on this issue (and for that list of articles),for the things to be ironed out, and a formal conclusion made in which all must abide by, failing which disciplinary action can be carried out by admins? I am not too sure of where or how this article should be located in, but I am open to anything to long that a single page can be easily retrived and reference to in any future dispute (because I have to note that it is possible for anyone else to appear and invoke the same kind of tussle if he happens to have the same political view).

What do you guys think of these suggestions?--Huaiwei 10:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am most willing to comply, but I am afraid I have to say it is a bit meaningless to have things frozen as at the time being. Huaiwei and SchmuckyTheCat have insisted to display versions according to their preference, and have already done. This is already allowing them to be in a better position to agree with anything.

As for what SchmuckyTheCat has said, I have no objection for Hong Kong categories to be subcategories of PRC or Chinese counterparts. I fully acknowledge the fact that Hong Kong's sovereignty is held by the PRC, so as Puerto Rico is to the United States, the Faroe Islands to Denmark, Åland to Finland, or Svalbard to Norway. What I objected was to group Hong Kong categories as subcategories of mainland China-specific categories, no matter their titles. When the situation is ambiguous, interwiki links between the categories is preferred, and has been done by some other wikipedians, such as user:Olivier, to a few categories that I have never edited. Since Huaiwei and SchmuckyTheCat have violently objected to use the term "mainland China", many mainland China-specific categories are left with the titled "something in/of China/the PRC" or "Chinese something".

I talked about original intents because they reflect the view of other uninvolved editors. In any situation where there's a dispute between two parties, the best temporary solution is that both parties renounce putting their points of view to the disputed article, and let uninvolved third parties to decide. Everybody else's point of view, except for the two parties involved, should be reflected in the displayed version.

I agree with Huaiwei's suggestion above. In fact I've bookmarked Wikipedia:centralised discussion and template:cent, and am planning to discuss out there and, possibily, to reach an ultimate resolution, when the ArbCom case is over, and the other parties have agreed to stop insisting to display their preferred versions. I believe this will provide the best foundations to have the conversations, and to facilitate inputs from the rest of the community who are familiar with the subject matter. — Insta ntnood 10:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fact is no one is in a better position as it is now. We still see plenty of objectionable content and presentation on both sides, so if we keep highlighting offensive articles and declaring the situation unfair, then how is this going to proceed? For every article you say is "frozen in a version STC and me prefer", there is another article I would love to revert over. Put this kind of feelings aside, for now, and see how things go.

Btw, I notice we have started talking about content here (with regards to categories) already. Its a good move, but lets wait till STC fully gets on in this project, and lets iron things out one at a time in the single discussion page, so that everyone's views can be heard.--Huaiwei 11:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. As to the central location, I don't really mind. We could just make a subpage in my userspace, or did you have something else in mind? I also like your idea about content additions as well (since that's the impetus for reverting anyway) and had rather hoped that that was basically what would happen if everyone was making a good faith effort. All agree? Dmcdevit·t 18:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hands up in agreement from me, and awaiting the go-ahead from the other parties involved. I am agreeable to the location of the subpage (not too important as of yet. We can consider implimenting it as part of conventions later). And dont worry too much about the "additions" thing for now too. All three of us need to volunteerily declare what we will not do before it does ahead, and we agree on a common threshold point. I cant be unitarily setting the benchmarks. Hope you guys can be more forthcoming? Thanks a million!--Huaiwei 21:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind making any sacrifice, except those that would be translated into the long end of the stick to the other party. I would highly appreciate if Huaiwei and SchmuckyTheCat were willing to voluntarily remove their points of view that have been implanted into the articles and categories during the contentious edits, i.e. to restore these articles and categories based on their original intent, no matter the original intent coincides with the position of any party. That would be a very good gesture to build mutual trust, which has been absent after several times of reverts to insist to display according to their preference. Without mutual trust I'm afraid it would be much harder to reach a resolution, and harder work for Dmcdevit to mediate. — Insta ntnood 22:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be brutally honest, I do not think this is the right attitude to adopt at all for a condusive environment to be created for dispute resolution. While asking for I and STC to "remove contentious edits", I wonder if you are expecting to do the same yourself? It is not exactly in good taste to expect others to conceed first before the process has even formally begun, and to use this as a condition before you would sit on the negotiation table. I do not think this is setting a healthy precedent at all.

I have to constantly emphasise. No one is in a better position at all now. None of us actually predicted that a potential for dispute resolution is sight in what started off as yet another one of your calls for an admin to "freeze" pages, so there is no basis to insist that anyone pre-planned anything. Beyond the few pages you asked to be reverted, both STC and I certainly do have an entire library of articles we wish to revert too. And if your original demands are met, are you then allowing STC and I to be placed on a stronger position to demand greater concessions on your part subsequently?--Huaiwei 22:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No kidding. The total number of edits from Instantnood is probably two or three times the number of edits from Huaiwei and I put together - and that's kind of assuming Huaiwei and I would always agree (which we don't).

I've been really busy lately and only casually looking at things on my watchlist rather than spending time thinking of ways to answer you Dmcdevit. I think there was a specific question, and I'll go back and try and look at it later. For taking this to a centralized place - feel free to just make a subpage any old place thats convenient for you that doesn't crowd out other folks, cuz once going, we'll make a lot of noise. I might suggest that a free-for-all isn't going to be helpful. You may want to sub-divide by a page with a section for each of us, and we can only answer questions from you and not respond to each other.

And Huaiwei, I await with baited breath I will attempt to give a more complete answer for the role of STC later. :) SchmuckyTheCat 23:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(also a response to Huaiwei's comment at 22:54, October 11) Dmcdevit, if you can follow the edit history of the disputed entries (for those tagged with {{twoversions}}, special:whatlinkshere would be a useful tool), you may have already found out that I have always been sticking with my policy, that is, regardless of my point of view, I always restore these entries according to the original intent. There are articles that I have restored to a version that conincides with the point of view of Huaiwei and SchmuckyTheCat. Unlike them, who have been doing whatever they can to insist to display their preferred versions, I've never shown any insistence to display a version according to my own preference. I see it as an act to show my impartialness in turning edit warrings to temporary truce, and for this mediation may concern, this is to show that I don't want to be in any good position when agree or promise with anything.

May I emphasise that I am only requesting Huaiwei and SchmuckyTheCat to do it voluntarily. This is not a prerequisite, but it's definitely a good gesture to build mutual trust. Do they refuse to do so, I would be more pessimistic towards the possibility in reaching anything in this mediation. I am sorry Dmcdevit to have kept you busy around us. — Insta ntnood 07:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the past experience, no resolution has ever been reached in the last nine months. I understand all what you are requesting is temporary, nevertheless the whole mediation process can last for a long time, it is not in the benefits of other readers to display their preferred versions that deviate from the intent of the rest of community who has edited the same article. What I have requested is not prerequisite, but it will definitely show they are not insistence. If they strongly believe their POV is neutral, I could have said I believe mine is neutral too. I cannot understand why they are not willing to do what I have done (e.g., with the list of railways in China (history)). — Insta ntnood 08:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

StC says:

List of railways in China is a fine example. It's edit history is short and simple with less than fifty edits you can scan it on one page.

Day 1

User:Alanmak creates the article and does some fine tuning, he names it "List of railway in China"
Another user performs a move, not to "mainland" or "PRC" but simply to pluralize railways. "China" appears to be good enough.
Alanmak does minor edits

Further along

Instantnood decides to change everything about the article. [34], he removes Hong Kong, puts up a header that says it's only about the mainland, and changes the category. His edit summary is rather vague.
Huaiwei reverts him ten minutes later, noting in the edit summary that the article is not limited to the mainland.
15 minutes later, Instantnood reverts Huaiwei with a snarky edit summary, then does another edit to place the twoversions tag on the article.
10 hours later, I move the template to the bottom of the article and state clearly the edit in the summary.
2 hours later, Alanmak returns, edits the Hong Kong link and states that it is not a mainland only article.

Over the next month

At least three anons make edits, some of them significant. Two other named editors and Alanmak continue to make edits. I make a non-significant copyedit. Huaiwei extends the alphabetical sorting of the category. Instantnood makes four edits, the only contribution to them being he takes the edits he likes and saves them, then reverts himself and updates the twoversions tag to point to his save - effectively twice updating his content fork.

The talk page for this article - blank. Nobody has even hit the edit button. To Instantnoods credit, he gave in right away and didn't edit war. However, he still attempted to change it to his POV until quickly slapped down by someone who wasn't Huaiwei or myself. He is still maintaining his POV fork. However he hasn't

attempted to justify why he even attempted to remove Hong Kong from the list
attempted to justify why he attempted to limit the article to one region
made any attempt to discuss why a twoversions template is appropriate here

And like all other articles where he has placed the twoversions template, the edit history is clear, the silent majority just goes on with the edits and ignores him and his disputes. Did any other editor of the half-dozen who have edited this article back him up or also attempt these edits? Nope, he's just out there tilting at windmills.

I don't really feel any need to justify why he's incorrect for the 1000th time. Wikipedia works on concensus and he has none, the rest of the community has rejected his view, because the fact of the matter is that Hong Kong is part of China, so an article about China should include Hong Kong (or, point to an article about Hong Kong) and not exclude it. The NPOV policy isn't just about articles either, it works across the wikipedia. If Instantnood has a POV to assert that he thinks is missing, he needs to find the appropriate article and get it out in the open and not change articles.

A side example here, is Evolution of the Horse. Creationists probably engage in more wiki flame wars than our China dispute, but notice there isn't a single word here about creationism? Obviously creationsists have a POV about evolution in general, but it's not in the article about the horse. So Instantnood needs to get past his POV of an indendent Hong Kong and not try and push it down every single article. SchmuckyTheCat 16:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(also a response to SchmuckyTheCat's comment at 16:25, October 12) If there's a clear consensus of the community like the one SchmuckyTheCat has mentioned, there wouldn't be administrators moving articles to "something in/of mainland China", and proposed to have mainland-specific categories (e.g. #1 #2), there wouldn't be an article like demographics of mainland China (move history) with the title "mainland China" since last December. And during the revert warring of the list of companies, there are other editors preferring mainland too. My request to Huaiwei and SchmuckyTheCat is not a prerequisite. I just meant to express my feelings towards their true willingness, and towards the possibility of reaching a real solution. — Insta ntnood 18:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like everyone else, I am simply waiting for one member to get past his mental block and say yes. Comments about everything else will come in due course. Meanwhile, when the negotiation process formally starts, may I propose that we make use of the main page to write statements and so forth. This discussion page may be best used just for background discussion, such as how the negotiation process can take place?--Huaiwei 12:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnood, I've told you that I think your proposal is unworkable. You said somewhere above that it wasn't a prerequisite. So, now I'm going to put the question to you again. Will you agree to the ceasefire right now as is? Dmcdevit·t 15:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to report, that I just noticed the first instance in which Instantnood has made a disputed edit in Category:Healthcare in Hong Kong [35]. And the only reason why I notice this is of coz by the fact that it pops up on my watchlist (I set every single article I ever touch to be on my watchlist). As part of my continued adherance to my promise, I am not going to revert it, but I would think his action begs a good explaination here.--Huaiwei 07:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm most willing to comply, and I do hope mediation would work. I just meant to express my bad feelings, which I found no reason I should hide, towards their true willingness to reach a resolution, for they have clearly shown they don't care about their advantaged position in promising with anything. I have also indicated my opinion that we should start dealing with the two lists. As for the two entries you mentioned, the edit to the Pan-Blue visits article is nothing contentious at all. I don't agree the by country category should be removed from the healthcare category, but I've reverted myself already, adhering to what I have promised. — Insta ntnood 08:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good. One last thing for this section. The enforcement Huaiwei mentioned above: does anyone feel strongly about it either way? I'll go along with it if everyone agrees to be bound by it, but i think i'm uncomfortable otherwise (as this mediation is voluntary). Speak up if you want it. Dmcdevit·t 08:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would accept slap on the wrist blocks that are short, inconvenient and possibly escalating. SchmuckyTheCat 14:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wah....I gotta type the description again?? Haha. Anyway why arent the rest contributing to it yet? (other then STC's that is)--Huaiwei 11:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can copy and paste parts if you like, I just want to ave it in one location and in your own words. :) Dmcdevit·t 17:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disputes

The lists (companies, etc.)

I'm going to organize a section here so we can discuss this particular dispute.First of all, I don't feel that I've heard these addressed specifically that much, so I'll ask for more explanation. One opinion I have on the matter is that I think {{twoversions}} should only be temporary. We need to move toward an equitable resolution that doesn't incorporate it (ie, a single agreeable article).

Involved articles: (feel free to add more if there are any, in the list dispute)

List of road-rail bridges

I believe we have agreed that, rather than stop editing and adding, useful content can still be added to different articles, as long as possibly contentious ones are recorded so that all parties will know about them, and can modify them upon any solution is reached. — Insta ntnood 06:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My listing the article here was only to note and categorize the lists involved. This one just popped up. It doesn't mean that I think you should stop adding useful info. Carry on. :) Dmcdevit·t 06:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. — Insta ntnood 19:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnood's summary

One phrase/sentence of dispute:

Which of the two versions to be displayed for the list of companies and list of airports in the PRC (formerly titled ..in mainland China).

Full summary:

As earlier mentioned, the mediation at the time being shall best be focused on the two lists.

The two lists were originally created for mainland China, and were originally titled ".. in mainland China". User:Huaiwei and User:SchmuckyTheCat disagree with the usage of this term. SchmuckyTheCat moved both lists to their present titles, and Huaiwei edited the lists to expand the scope to cover Hong Kong and Macao.

Since the two lists were originally created for mainland China, and were originally titled ".. in mainland China", it is natural to restore the lists according to the original intents (note: not restoring to an earlier version and discard all the edits in between). It does not matter, and is irrelevant whose point(s) of view do the original intents represent. The best way to temporarily stop a dispute is that both parties stop editing according to their own points of view, and let the other (earlier, or subsequent) editors to decide. (FYI: I did have a record that the outcomes contradict with my point of view, but that was done based on the same principle.)

Yet Huaiwei and SchmuckyTheCat were not satisfied. After the {{twoversions}} template was applied, they argued what I had done was basically to display my preferred versions, and insisted to change to their preferred versions. That led to my request to protect the two lists. After they are unprotected, the same happened again.

I expressed my little hope at the general discussion subpage that they would voluntarily restore the lists, as a good gesture to mediation. They refused.

At some point during the conflicts, I do wonder if they truly understand the practical usage of the term "mainland China" or "mainland" in real-life situations. I also wonder if they have ever misinterpreted my view and my position.

Role of other two parties in dispute (critique of behavior, not content dispute, that contributed to the dispute):

Huaiwei and SchmuckyTheCat share similar views, but not identical. Nevertheless sometimes they tend to move towards the views of each other. — Insta ntnood 20:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huawei's summary

[For the moment I'll assume Huaiwei and STC have the same position here. If you'd like to clarify or add to something SRC said, feel free, but if you agree, you can leave this blank. Dmcdevit·t 05:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)][reply]

One phrase/sentence of dispute:

Full summary:

I am lazy, so I shall provide a link to a relevant entry I made earlier first: User_talk:Dmcdevit/Mediation/General_discussion#Huaiwei_and_STC_summaries. Will try to add to this later. Meanwhile, are we restricting discussion to just those two articles, or just about everything? It has been a rather disturbing day today in my experiences with my good friend.--Huaiwei 15:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Role of other two parties in dispute (critique of behavior, not content dispute, that contributed to the dispute):

SchmuckyTheCat's summary

(I'm limiting myself to just these two articles, the larger dispute is too big to be contained. Also, insert "and Macau" after every occurrence of Hong Kong).

One phrase/sentence of dispute: Whether the companies and airports articles about China should be limited to the regional area of mainland China rather than the entire country.

Full summary:

Article history and behavior summary: Instantnood wishes to limit the two articles (companies and airports) to the scope of mainland China because that presentation elevates the percieved international status of Hong Kong and debases the parent country People's Republic of China to the regional term. He persisted to edit war with Huaiwei and I (and others) over these two articles, insisting on maintaining his presentation against community concensus. He gamed 3RR, insisting five edits over two days wasn't as bad as three edits in one. When he failed to maintain his content in the article, he used the twoversions template to create a POV fork and inserted a disclaimer template about the title. He then refused to discuss (or filibustered any discussion). He did not gain any more concensus from the community and other editors went on editing and ignoring him. After some time, I removed the twoversions template as they should be temporarily used to merge the POV points of each version, not maintain an alternative. He edit warred to keep the templates, and after losing the revert war, campaigned to have the articles protected - the protection actually ended up on his POV fork. He hasn't come back to discuss it - indeed, the talk page discussion asking him what there is to protect, he wouldn't discuss the content, only the templates and title which point to forked content [36].

Content argument: Hong Kong already does have it's own articles for both of these - the existence of that article isn't even questioned. Hong Kong is absolutely part of the People's Republic of China. Instantnood wants these articles titled to "mainland China" which he uses synonymously with "People's Republic of China" - but the term excludes Hong Kong and he wants Hong Kong content removed from the articles. In this way there would be no "List of XX in the People's Republic of China" article, just a category to which both articles would belong, ie, presenting that the mainland and Hong Kong are equal. The mainland has thirty some political divisions equal to Hong Kong! It's not that special! This is a POV that would be unprecedented. Dozens of countries have territories, dependencies, protectorates, etc. None of them are presented with a regional term that excludes the parent country from using it's own name based on some reasoning that it would exclude the territories. Can you imagine lumping all airports in the 50 states of the US into one article named "Airports of Yankee America" and making it equal to one article for Puerto Rico and another for DC and insisting on that division? of course not.

For the airports, the proper breakout would be by province as the articles for airports in those provinces are written. The article at issue here would point to the provincial articles over time with a link to major airports, just as it currently does now for HK and Macau.

For the companies. Relatively few notable companies are only located in the mainland. Even before 1997, state owned companies would start subsidiaries in HK (and the rest of the world too). After 1997, and since CEPA, and looking forward as everyday marches towards 2047, the illusions of seperateness of subsidiaries and holding companies between HK and mainland companies disappears. HK and the rest of the PRC are separate economies, but that separateness is a veil, not a wall. The editors of the current article have gone at length to split the companies by industry and add some location information about major offices, manufacturing sites, etc - 'noods version is incredibly primitive comparatively, showing just how far people have gone without him. Really, the diff doesn't do it justice. Look at the current version [37] and his version [38] side by side. And again, HK has it's own list. He is only warring to exclude.

Role of other two parties in dispute (critique of behavior, not content dispute, that contributed to the dispute):

Huaiwei: On these two articles, I think Huaiwei and I are pretty much in agreement.
Instantnood: tilting at windmills.

Queries by Dmcdevit

(For everyone)

Okay, so (quick and dirty): STC/Hua say Hong Kong and Macau should go in the lists, to fit the current name, I'nood prefers to keep it at its original scope without HK or Macau, (and possibly even move it back to the original "mainland" title?).

Before we go any further, I'm sure this has been proposed, but I'd like your opinion. We all know that HK and Macau are part of the PRC. But also, as far as I can tell, "mainland China" is a legitimate geographical (or maybe political, as in "excluding the autonomous regions," but no matter) subset that has currency. Would it not be sensible to have a PRC list (the current one) with HK and Macau, but also a mainland China list without HK and Macau, i.e. preserve original intent there with the accurate name, as well as the current HK list, and a Macau one if needed. You see, I'm a big fan of lists, and think they are a good reference for condensed information. And if we step away from the content dispute, redundancy is good with lists, in that different ways of organization can help readers looking at it with different purposes. (For example, I created list of UN peacekeeping missions, which has all of them, including current ones, organized by date, but list of countries where UN peacekeepers are currently deployed has only the current missions, but organized by country, though they are repeated). As long as the intros make sure to specify the distinctions, and link to the different lists, then we can have the two versions as two NPOV lists that follow their specified scope. Why can't that work? Dmcdevit·t 05:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnood's response:

The opinion of mine or of Huaiwei and SchmuckyTheCat on how the lists should be sorted is not actually that relevant here a the time being, since what we have to do is to decide what should be displayed when both parties cannot agree with anything to resolve the disagreements.

If the above is solved and the ArbCom case is concluded, it would be time to explore possibilities to deal with the disagreements. The lists were compiled based on the fact that they are three economies, or three administrations of aviation affairs, although within one sovereign state. Except from being components of the same sovereign state, they are nothing different from other economies/territories that are geographically or politically (or both) close enough to achieve a considerable level of cooperation, e.g., EU, NAFTA. Non-sovereign territories may or may not be integral parts of sovereign states. British overseas territories and crown dependencies are never considered part of the UK, but the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Jan Mayen are integral parts of the kingdoms of Denmark and Norway. Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles are, together with the (European) Netherlands, components of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The distinction between the Northern Territory and the Norfolk Island of Australia is also ambiguous, so as Puerto Rico and former US Territories that became states of the US-50. — Insta ntnood 08:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I didn't totally get your opinion, but is it that you would like the separate lists I suggested, but no overarching "PRC" list, because HK/Macau/rest of PRC represent three distinct [insert list subject]? In that case, I don't think it's a problem. Imagine a "list of airports (companies) in Europe." Would that not be useful to readers, despite separate administrations. I think both the subset and the overall, despite redundancy, are useful to the reader, whether or not we say HK/Macau are integral or not to the PRC. Dmcdevit·t 22:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the first thing we shall handle is which versions should be displayed. — Insta ntnood 06:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is what the comment was about. I believe that in order to have an agreeable solution, it would be possible to have multiple lists where both intended scopes could be displayed and corresond to their titles in an NPOV way. The impementation of this would include settling the current main airport list as well. Dmcdevit·t 17:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Before we press on to explore any other possible ways of presentation, the first thing to be settled is which of the two versions should be displayed, based on the points of view of contributors to the lists, other than those involved in the dispute. — Insta ntnood 19:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and in each case there have been half a dozen or so of other editors who have gone on to edit and paid not one wit of attention to your ranting and raving about presentation even though it dominates the contribution history of the article and the talk pages. SchmuckyTheCat 19:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's not endorsement of your point of view, either, I'm afraid. — Insta ntnood 20:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the edit history, I would think you have an even worse-off position to claim any "endorsement" of your view so to speak. I am still wondering why you have this really strange chain of thought towards dispute resolution in your "bottom up" approach, as thou one should come up with the end product first before building the foundation, if that sounds logical at all. Or is it just reflective of someone who just wants to debate over "what version to display" in two specific articles, the only reason why he bothered to post a notice in Dmcdevit's talk page anyway? How very commited to dispute resolution indeed.--Huaiwei 21:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Come on guys, the last few comments are just off-topic banter. I'm sure you've all said the same old stuff to each other many times and could just copy and paste. Let's try to get something new done. Dmcdevit·t 05:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I could go back to basics. Part of the problem appears to be that the preentation of the SARs in any way might unduly imply simmilarity or dissimmilarity to other administrative structures. So, we all (must) agree that HK and Macau are, however nominally, part of the PRC and the reader of a main PRC-related list would expect to find them there in some capacity. I'd like only Instantnood to explicitly respond to that last statement and say that you would accept in principle some list that had both mainland China and the SARs together (with whatever very precise explanatory language to go along with it, to be worked out later) as long as that's not the end of the story. In my view, we should couple the main lists with others spun off, and where the SARs, among others would be separate to reduce abmbiguity by taking the time in their own articles to explicate the SAR status (autonomy, non-sovereign state, etc.) more fully without the influence of other provinces and things to muck it up. The purpose of the other proposed lists is to preserve the "original intent" of the list, with the mainland China lists and SAR lists, with this new list with both. Dmcdevit·t 05:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Before we press on and explore possibilities, the mediation here should focus on the which versions should be displayed. It was for that reason that we approached you, since you're the one who unprotect the lists. As for further plans, it's not the business of only four of us, therefore I don't think it would be appropriate for the only four of us to decide, without the participation of the rest of the wikipedian community. — Insta ntnood 13:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not get it? He's trying to get us past the dispute by presenting alternatives so we can move on and create content and stop arguing. We have more than the two choices of two existing versions. SchmuckyTheCat 14:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnood, this proposal does determine which version should be displayed, just creating more lists as part of the compromise. The point is to incorporate both viewpoints, not just pick one of the two versions (no way both sides would agree to that). Think it over. Dmcdevit·t 15:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you're bold and have ambitious plans Dominic, but that's beyond the first step. The four of us cannot decide anything further without inputs from the rest of the community. — Insta ntnood 16:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, regardless of whether or not you think anyone else will accept it, I'd like to hear whether you do. Just because. I don't actually think this is that ambitious, and the three people here are the most likely to object, not the other contributors. If you three agree on it, then I think we can easily find support on the talk page, or just WP:BB it. Dmcdevit·t 17:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I may help to translate noodian to English, what he is basically saying is that he thinks this dispute resolution exercise is not going his way, and hence he wants out. Sadly for him, the only time "outside comments" had to come in was via arbcoms and such, and what was the outcome? If he is going to attempt to ditch every mediation effort when he isnt happy with it, then I think an ultimatum will be required soon.--Huaiwei 17:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(response to Dmcdevit's comment at 17:27, October 28) I have no comment on this unless the first steps are done. — Insta ntnood 17:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC) (modified 20:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Read what I said before, this is an attept to address the "first steps," it deals with what version is displayed. What are you talking about, and why won't you respond? (can I ask everyone butInstantnood to stop adding comments here right now, it just looks like provocation.) Dmcdevit·t 17:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And as I have said before, the request was made in response to your unprotection, and their subsequent insistence to display their preferred versions [39]. This is what we have to address at the time being. — Insta ntnood 20:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SchmuckyTheCat response:

I would object to this because in all of these articles "mainland China" is the PRC. The term is used and defined by those outside of the mainland to highlight their separateness. I can hardly think of articles where it would be appropriate to have mainland only articles, whereas, it is highly appropriate to make an article about China and simply make a statement about it's applicability to HK/Macao. In these two instances: the companies list has geographical information on the companies; and the airports listed is organized by political division. Breaking out lists by geography isn't necessarily bad - in the airports case it is obvious to break it out by provincial level division. (and see here just how strained and insulted 'nood will get calling HK province level). Instantnood's objection is very clear: he wants it titled (and scoped) to mainland because he objects to Hong Kong being included in, (and subservient to), the PRC.

Creating a mainland only article based on the exclusion of Hong Kong is presumptuous - it puts the cart before the horse. HK returned to Chinese rule in 1997. HK Chinese referred to China as "the mainland" in 1995. But would there be a mainland titled article in 1995. No - the country is named the People's Republic of China. Instantnood waves his hands and comes up with dozens of examples of dependent territories, former colonies, federated states, etc. What's clear in all of them, however, is that no parent country has articles titled by an exonym. There is no list of airports in Metropolitan France, nor a list of companies in Mainland Finland, nor are there categories of articles about some geographical/political subset about "The parts of the United States that can vote in the US Senate" based on the exclusion of Puerto Rico, Guam or Washington DC. We have articles describing terms like Lower 48 but even presuming some Alaskan or Hawaiian independence movement it would be preposterous to start making Wikipedia lists of things in the Lower 48 simply because the term exists.

We don't do any of these things, because the parent country is the parent country. Colonies, territories, dependencies, SARs, are all interesting places with interesting relationships with the parent country, but we don't rename the parent country based on that, nor do we maintain lists that only include the parent country under some assumed name. SchmuckyTheCat 00:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And a PS, the ArbCom dispute is not going to rule on content, so I don't know what 'nood is after by mentioning it. FWIW though, Fred Bauder has proposed that Instantnoods insistence on the mainland usage is "inconsistent with the PRC's soveriengty". SchmuckyTheCat 00:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should clarify the essence of my point. It was that with separate, redundant lists, there would be no need to dispute where HK fits in. I wasn't trying to create a distinction like mainland US vs. Puerto Rico, but "mainland China" was just my sloppy opposite-to-HK/Macau term. Consider separate lists of Hong Kong, Macau, and also, say, Hubei, Jilin, Tibet, etc. (or maybe broader regions if those are too small, but you get the point). And an overarching PRC list. What do you think of that? Dmcdevit·t 22:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is, in fact, exactly what I meant: "in the airports case it is obvious to break it out by provincial level division." (Currently those sections don't have enough material to break out into independent lists and with the state of air transportation in China, they may not ever have enough material, though that point is neither here nor there.) SchmuckyTheCat 23:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So that's a definite yes for the airport list(s)? And how about the company one, how would you divide it up along those same lines? I want a way to have the big PRC list with everything, separate HK and Macau and other divisions for the rest of the PRC, so that each would be uncontentious on its own. What do you think the "divisions for the rest of the PRC" could be? Dmcdevit·t 02:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond to this part when which versions to be displayed is settled, and when the case is concluded. — Insta ntnood 06:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above, this about the versions. Thus the divisions are important. We can assume HK and Macau can stand on their own with lists, how to best divide up the rest is merely a technical difficulty. Dmcdevit·t 17:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is a clear way to differentiate the company lists. By province is obviously out. What other editors did (not Huaiwei, myself or 'nood) was to organize the companies list by what kind of thing they did (steel, computers, cars, etc). Then, they've added the geographical places they have major operations (including within China and in other countries too, look at the listing there for Lenovo). It's necessary to look at the larger economic arena here, Shenzen is where it is, and has grown like it has because of Hong Kong (and vice versa, most manufacturing has moved from HK to Guangzhou even for "HK" companies). Jiang Zemin knew very well that China is still a second-world economy (as a whole) and it views HK as it's open door to the western world for expertise, investment and trade. Thus almost no notable "mainland" companies exist that only do mainland business. Thus, the current layout of the article makes a lot of sense to me - a "mainland" only article would lead to arguments about which companies belong. SchmuckyTheCat 18:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Companies all move and operate around, especially among close trade partners. — Insta ntnood 19:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I cant be seeing things. Isnt any depiction of "closeness" fatally taboo as far as nood is concerned?--Huaiwei 21:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huaiwei's response:

I am sorry for coming into this late. Anyway, when reading Dmcdevit's suggestion, I was on the verge of agreeing with it (ie, one list each for the PRC, for Mainland China, for subnational entities such as the SARs, blah blah blah) until I read the rest of the comments. Biased I may be, but Instantnood's repeated comments about HK autonomy cuts no ice with me. On the other hand, I do wonder if we need an "airports in continental USA" as STC comments. --Huaiwei 16:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My purpose was not to have such a wide disparity like a "continental US" model would produce (unless it were desired), but rather other subdivisions of China that would be on par with HK in length (i.e., continue analogy: list on Puerto Rico, list on New York, list on California, etc.). Dmcdevit·t 17:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, I am rather mystified by comments like "which versions to be displayed is settled". Isnt this discussion addressing that issue?--Huaiwei 16:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to that above (answer: yes, that was my intention :) What do you say to my response to STC above? Dmcdevit·t 17:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, then, that what you are proposing if for a "list of XXX in the PRC" along with individual "list of XXX in the (subnational entity)" where appriopriate? If so, I agree with no reservations. Creation of a "list of XXX in Mainland China" will need greater convincing thou.--Huaiwei 18:10, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another dispute: List of road-rail bridges

We agreed not to revert each other, so I am not. However, here is a perfect example in a new list of how Instantnood wishes to present Hong Kong. The list is nothing more than a stub. He sees it, adds Hong Kong and Macau as countries, equal to the existing countries like Australia. I notice it and I add a few more Chinese bridges, and then format Hong Kong and Macao under China with the other provinces. Instantnood puffs and re-orders HK and Macau separately from China, as equals, as individual countries equal to China or Australia. Ordering Hong Kong and Macau as individual countries when the list was created was merely questionable. His re-ordering the list to make HK and Macau independent wasn't a revert of the content, but it certainly was of the presentation, which is the point of his edits anyways. I call shenanigans on our mediation agreement. SchmuckyTheCat 00:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnood, I am concerned about this. I'm confident we won't lete it (hehe) derail the mediation, but I'd like to know what you were thinking? Tell me you forgot and I'll assume good faith.

With regards to this new list though, I'm going to try something, and I hope it will stimulate a critique here or on its talk page, and not instantly changing it. It's fine if you want to tell me I botched it. But it strikes me that here the problem is that there is no clearly defined distinction between the SAR of HK and the province Liaoning. So I think I'nood felt compelled to put them in the separate header level. Since we all know they are (somehow) part of the PRC, I think specifying and specifically differentiating the categories would help. Something like this. Did that do anything for anyone? Dmcdevit·t 03:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to derail the mediation, and I believe it was done exactly according to what we have earlier agreed upon (see my comment above as well).

As for your latest edit, I would oppose listing them as such. Muncipalities, provinces and autonomous regions are constitutionally at the same level (the so-called "province-level") in the hierachy (Article 30 of PRC's constitution), and it may not be for the interests of readers to present the distinction on a list of bridges. Special administrative regions are completely outside of the hierachy. They are not province-level, although they're logically first-order division as provinces, etc., do. Special administrative region is not prescribed in the same article of the constitution, and nowhere has them been considered province-level. Given their status and character I don't see any problem to list them as separate sections from the section for the rest of the sovereign state. — Insta ntnood 06:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three things. I just wanted you to see that your change back of the header looked like a revert, whether you realized it or not. STC was right to notice it and good to bring it here. I accept that it was an honest mistake. Now, with regards to my revision, my whole point was to not portray the SARs as province-level, but the opposite. Putting it unorganized under PRC implies they are provinces like the rest, whereas making them separate implies they have no connection to PRC. Marking them as SARs shows that they are first-order, intentionally, like provinces, but I can't see that it implies it is prvince-level. I just thought indicating all the first-order divisions would clear it up. See what I mean? Dmcdevit·t 06:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait, wait. Before you waste any more time on this, I had a point #3 that could make all this moot. If the sectioning by country merely invites controversy and politicization, why have it? This is a list of road-rail bridges, not a list of countries by bridge, and we need not organize it that way if it has not proved useful. I propose we scrap that and simply alpebetize it. Or use any other system. Chronologically by construction, by continent, reverse-alphabetically in Pig Latin... but just plain ole alphabetically is probably best. Minimize confrontation. :) Dmcdevit·t 07:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't anything, per se, wrong with that. However, that hasn't changed the dispute before. Someone is bound to add regional/country information to the list (because geography and political boundaries are indisputably useful information). Instantnood has in the past refused to let the word "China" or "SAR of China" appear after Hong Kong in such lists. Implementing this kind of change would hit hundreds of lists where the argument has come up before, disruption well beyond the scope of 'noods WP:POINT. It would still not address lists where the political breakup is obviously and indisputably necessary where Instantnood has also revert warred to make HK be independent. SchmuckyTheCat 18:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I forsee stuff like this is going to happen, which is why in my earliest comments, I mentioned I am not even going to ADD information. Instantnood's addition of HK and Macau into this list ignited the latest round of reverts, as it always happens, and its not like he isnt aware of that. Its good he publicised the addition of this entry. I wonder why he didnt then tell us he is reverting it. To put a stop to such disputes? Quit adding/editing/removing any such information, and we can then settle past disputes first without getting new disputes to constantly bog us down day after day. I dont see how things can get any better if individuals continue to test the system.--Huaiwei 18:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit to being guilty when compared to Huaiwei because I edited this [40]. I claim good faith, however, in trying to order it as the UK and US are. It was of course reverted [41] with mainland only commentary [42].

It was not me who started Hong Kong with its section. The way of presentations on existing articles should not be modified, as per our earlier agreement. — Insta ntnood 19:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? [43] dosent look like it was added by STC does it?--Huaiwei 19:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SchmuckyTheCat is talking about the list of IMAX venues. I did not start the section for Hong Kong for this list. — Insta ntnood 20:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He isnt saying you started it either, and has come forth to admit it. I tot that was plain obvious?--Huaiwei 21:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With new additions noted and recorded, they can be modified accordingly whenever any resolution is reached. — Insta ntnood 19:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This would have been a plausible solution provided all contributors religously annouce and document such edits. Today's events demonstrated to me that this is far from whats happening. STC's comments contributed to this fact. Why are there no notifications regarding IMAX?--Huaiwei 19:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I started a new section explicitly for this below, please read my request to all. Dmcdevit·t 06:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that this conflict tends to spread out of the blue to new lists once the HK/Macau info is added. I like the spirit of Huaiwei's request thtathere be no new content additions as well, but I wouldn't want to stifle novel new content to the encyclopedia. So, how about if you are adding a new section on HK/Macau in a list you have never edited before, you should say what you want added on the talk page, say there is a dispute and ask for a current contributor of that article to add the section for you, however they see fit. This means that in your talk page notice, you should only say that there is a dispute, and not say how you want it, or why either side disputes it. And no one will change how another unrelated contributer has chosen to add it. Agreed? Dmcdevit·t 06:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan/ROC

[44] This is an edit 'nood knows would bother people. SchmuckyTheCat 06:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dependencies

As I mentioned in my summary, the political status of HK was basically the main issue in all disputes, and an aspect of it was instantnood attempting to call HK a "dependency" to justify its appearance in country lists. In doing so, he has been trying to paint the same self-created definition onto other places, particularly those related to Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway.

Now see what happens when Danish contributors come in and sound out their opposition. See the most recent exhange in these three talk pages, and see for yourself how he uses personal definitions, passes them off as "accepted ones", and tries to warp the views of another contributor to fit his own: User_talk:Instantnood#Danish_.22dependencies.22 User_talk:Valentinian#Re:_Danish_.22dependencies.22 User_talk:Huaiwei#Greenland_and_the_Faroe_Islands. I particularly find statements like "Gotta headache to exclude Scotland and Wales by the way, while including all the other non-sovereign self-governing countries" laughable. Since when is instantnood in the position to include some places while excluding others using definitions he create?

The extent to which instantnood attempts to whitewash history and reinterpret domestic politics for other countries is all in plain view for all to see. Feel free to comment and evaluate.--Huaiwei 18:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously know about the edit history of the list of dependent territories and the list of countries as good as, if not better than, I do. They are collaborations and products of consensus building among many Wikipedians even before I joined Wikipedia. You may also know well that the CIA World Factbook has published a list of dependencies. Painting self-created definitions? I doubt.

If you're genuinely serious about this mediation, please stop making those unreasonable and unsound accusations. Don't waste the time of Dominic, who has been so kind and helpful to try getting us out of the deadlock. — Insta ntnood 19:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I do not, and I have not bothered to invest the time trying to discover who wrote what in that page, except realising just one individual basically wrote the whole damn introduction. If that text was taken from somewhere else, I certainly do not know where it was taken from, for no referencing and no edit history was made. Collaborations and concensus? Yeah right. Just because no one else bothered or dared to question that one entry does not amount to any form of "concensus".

When does the CIA world factbook amount to "concensus"? They spell Macau with a U. Why do I not see you quoting the CIA in that aspect then?

As I said, the political status of HK is clearly the root of all evil here, so I certainly do not think I am wasting anyone's time by bringing this up. I find it a tad hypocritical even, that while you try to "mediate" here, you continue to poison somewhere else. And "accusation" is validified when there is proof. Let them judge, coz you cant erase evidence of what you are doing this very instance.--Huaiwei 19:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the arguments over the "dependency" term are a curious side effect with 'nood. On one hand, he is always trying to show how independent Hong Kong is. On the other, he was very vigorous in his interpretation that it was a dependency. He knows very well that dependency is a loaded word in international politics, it's a vestige of colonialism. It's like if he can't have his way to show how independent Hong Kong is he has to show how imperialistic the PRC is. SchmuckyTheCat 19:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As said elsewhere, the term "dependent territory" in English should not necessarily be associated with colonialism and imperialism. It's not an equivalence of "colony", although quite a lot dependent territories are or were formerly colonies. — Insta ntnood 19:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like instantnood is rather disjointed from the realities of English usage and its evolution. The fact that the term "dependency" is very closely related to the colonial era which lasted for centuries and made popular by the English (its their language and their empire afterall) seems inconsequential to instantnood, as thou people today has already forgotten all about colonialism. Ditto to his usage of the term "country", as thou everyone has started realising that it dosent refer only to independent states. I believe I touched on this in my summary of past events. Trying to take advantage of the disparaties between academic/specialist usage and that of the general public to promote political viewpoints is not an excusable act.--Huaiwei 19:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(stupid edit conflicts)

Every word in the English language is dependent on historical and cultural usage, context, and intent of the speaker. That is how English has become what it is. It may be a strength or it may be a weakness but it is an undeniable fact that you can't dictate contrary to. SchmuckyTheCat 19:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notice:Twoversions

This morning David Gerard blanked and protected the Twoversions template because it is used for POV forking [45] [46]. He then removed the template from all articles, including ones we dispute here and elsewhere. I'll give it on good faith that Instantnood reverted David Gerard [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] because he did not know the template was blanked. Other editors reverted Instantnood to enforce David Gerard's decision. Then 'nood just put links to his forks into the main article without the template [52] [53] [54] [55]. He was reverted again by other editors because what's the point of removing a template used for POV forking only to POV fork in the article itself? In one instance, I did the removal [56]. This falls outside of the scope of our mediation if an ArbCom member makes a decision on our disputes. SchmuckyTheCat 16:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Garard may not be keeping an eye on what's going on with the tagged articles. I've moved the links to the other versions to the talk pages. — Insta ntnood 18:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He dosent really need to "keep an eye on whats going on" here, hecause the justification for his removing of the template in other pages is exactly the same here...attempts by a few to use it to POV fork articles.--Huaiwei 04:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion was unfortunate in that I don't want anything to disrupt this dialogue we have. Of course the point of mediation is that we can get to a point where temporary templates like this aren't needed anymore. Talk pages will do for now for that info, but let's not mourn the loss of {{twoversions}}, and instead work towards oneversion. :) Dmcdevit·t 04:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(response to Huaiwei's comment at 04:13, October 28) Who are the persons POV forking? I believe it was some people trying to enforce their contentious point of view by modifying existing articles, and edit warring to have their preferred version displayed. — Insta ntnood 05:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When a person uses the twoversions tag, he is already POV forking it. Who else may it be? As for the second statement, I dont think it is possible for anyone to do that without another party being involved in it? The problem here is.....whether the other party is willing to accept responsiblity for it instead of constantly refusing to accept it and heeping all blame on his opponent(s)?--Huaiwei 12:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mind telling what made them become forks, in your opinion? — Insta ntnood 13:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a link on the article pointing to a different version, that is a fork. Need the wikitionary, mr nood?--Huaiwei 14:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason why there's a fork? What led to the forking? — Insta ntnood 14:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry-go-round and round. Huaiwei answered that to everyone's satisfaction here [57]. You're filibustering by asking for repetition of arguments already made. SchmuckyTheCat 14:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Muahahaa very funny nood. So what now...you asking what is a fork, or what is a fork made of? Or why are forks invented? This is hardly of concern here. The issue is that the template was abused by creating a fork, which is pretty clear to everyone (minus nood?). Asking me why the template was used will have to be answered by yourself, and asking why the dispute took place is is already well beyond the business of keeping/deleting twoversions. This is just plain humourous. Meanwhile, I should prob rejoyce over the lost of a politiking tool for nood.--Huaiwei 15:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who created the fork? — Insta ntnood 16:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who gave birth to nood?--Huaiwei 17:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[58] [59] [60] [61] — Insta ntnood 17:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

??? STC is your father? Edit: Oh....and I am your parent too?--Huaiwei 17:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpicking about definitions is a point I've made several times. Wikipedia's rules and policies are "in the spirit" of the goal to write an encyclopedia. They are flexible and based on common sense, not the actual text of the policy. Your level of rules-lawyering, filibustering and quibbling is an anathema to the mediation process and good faith and concensus in general. We are not here to play your games. SchmuckyTheCat 14:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to inform, that the latest revert war now involves whether the "dispute notification" should stay in List of airports in the People's Republic of China. Lets watch what happens.--Huaiwei 17:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're not helping yourself and all of us. Are you serious with the mediation here? Don't waste Dominic's time. — Insta ntnood 18:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not with you attempting to play your games in [62] and [63], and still trying to retain an unofficial notice in the two respective pages [64] [65].. You have proven to be an expert in feigning ignorance and trying to curry flavour admins. I am not so sure how long that is going to be effective when your edits come under increasing scutiny over time.--Huaiwei 18:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications of content additions

Following some controversy on the matter, this is now the official place to list any contentious content (hehe, contentious content) additions. I realize STC and Huai. strongly feel that Int'nood failed to make such a notification recently, and while it may be true, I'm inclined to just wipe everyone's slate clean as long as we all use this from now on. (i.e., the rules of mediation itself should not further the conflict.) A lot happened in the day I was offline, and I need time to catch up. I want everyone to be even more cautious about what they add, and especially generous about what is listed here. Strive for transparency, even overdo it. And absolutely, if there anyone adds any reference to Hong Kong or Macau where previously there was none, or adds or removes a reference to "mainland China" at all, list it here. Dmcdevit·t 05:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Example: I, ExampleUser, just just deleted every other word in Hong Kong and replaced it with "BadUser is bad!" Was this okay? ExampleUser 05:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC) Note:This is just Dmcdevit's idea of a joke, doesn't refer to any of you, :)[reply]
In Template:Cuisine of China, changed link to Hong Kong-style western cuisine with Cuisine of Hong Kong [66]--Huaiwei 13:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide a little bit more background, such as telling that this is a list of cuisine by genre (although it often coincide with geography), for how long the link to Hong Kong-style western cuisine has been existed on the list, and previous edits like this one and this one. Meanwhile, I do not agree this is relevant to the mediation here. — Instantnood 13:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is supposed to be a list of contentious edits. "Elaborate discussions over its background" should NOT be added here, and should be in its relevant talkpage, because this is not meant to superceed talk pages. In addition, as I said, list very damn thing which is remotely seen as contentious by the poster, as it clearly shows just how responsible one is. I think this may be contentious, and so I added it here. You dont have to comment on it if you think it is not.--Huaiwei 13:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Still you have to provide the relevant basic background information, or else the listing here is far from helpful. It's my opinion that this template is irrelevant to the mediation here, but don't think that's an objection to your listing here. — Instantnood 13:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is no need to turn this list into a war zone. List the contentious edit, and let the viewer read and form his own opinion. Adding an entry and then explaining it using your own viewpoint is basically introducing bias from day one, and inviting the other to also add his opinion, and as we jolly well know will happen, endless rounds of disputes will take place right here instead of at the relevant talk page where it should be at. If there is a need to talk, either express it there, and mention it here too if considered relevant to the overall dispute regarding the three of us. Failing to discuss it there shuts out comments from third parties who may be far from involved or interested in the overal petty disputes we constantly are in, but are interested in commenting on the specific dispute in a specific page. And quite obviously, this list is also not an avenue for anyone to tell others that his entry is not needed. As have to be reminded again, add entries according to personal intuition. This action alone also tells alot on an individual's sincerity towards dispute resolution.--Huaiwei 13:39, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In Cuisine of Hong Kong, added template {{Cuisine_of_China}} [67]--Huaiwei 13:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link to Hong Kong Civil Service to the see also section of the civil service article [68]. See also sections are seldom hierachical except for some special cases. — Instantnood 13:49, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So...you are expecting me to comment on it, and revert it yourself if I object?--Huaiwei 14:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In Hong Kong-style western cuisine, deleted template {{Cuisine_of_China}} [69]--Huaiwei 15:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In List of airports in the People's Republic of China, deleted dispute text [70]--Huaiwei 17:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reverted Huaiwei's edit [71]. The notice gives readers necessary information over the point of view issues of this list. — Instantnood 17:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have reverted for a second time [72]. — Insta ntnood 18:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In List of companies in the People's Republic of China, deleted dispute text [73]--Huaiwei 18:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reverted [74] for the same reason above. — Insta ntnood 18:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In Yaohan, deleted {{Macau-stub}} [75]--Huaiwei 09:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In Foreign relations of the Republic of China, deleted Hong Kong, Macau info. [76]--Huaiwei 15:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In National dish, undo re-introduction of disputed entries. [77]--Huaiwei 07:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In Economy of the People's Republic of China, reword sentence and perculiar reference to Mainland China. [78]--Huaiwei 07:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the list of road-rail tunnels, in which the way Hong Kong is presented may upset Huaiwei and SchmuckyTheCat. — Insta ntnood 20:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A section for Hong Kong was added to the list of aquaria. — Instantnood 15:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Just curious, but what is your purpose of adding any more entries to this list when you arent coorperating in this mediation process and has effectively killed it off?--Huaiwei 16:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who're the ones not cooperating and effectively killed it off? Please be reminded that something that's true from one's point of view doesn't mean it's always true from other points of view. Would be nice if you're at least giving some signs that you're willing to work towards some sort of settlement. — Instantnood 21:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - LOL you cant be serious. But then again, this kind of response is so typical of you. I believe anyone who reads the above can easily tell who are trying to get things going, and who are trying to place stumbling blocks all over with all kinds of "conditions". And I dont comprehend neither do I care to comprehend what that trash over "point of view" is all about. You appear to have problems articulating and putting your ideas across in simple and comprehensible English, so you might be glad to know these lines will just be ignored. Signs? What kind of signs would you like, my instantnood? And since you think you are in the position to ask for signs, can I ask the same from you too?--Huaiwei 16:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
New sections for Hong Kong was added to the article on tabloid and the list of marinas respectively [79] [80]. — Insta ntnood 16:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A general comment on this list: This list should not be interpreted as an excuse to therefore add/edit/delete contentious entries. The call to avoid those edits stays, and this list is a form of last resort when an edit has to be made, and thus listed here for reference.

Also, as I mentioned in the edit summary, can we have a seperate page for this list, since it can be expected to grow? Lets not allow this to crowd out proper discussions on overiding issues. Feel free to retain the unneeded discussion in this page thou.--Huaiwei 14:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Future

Given this [81] ultimatum; is there any possibility (or want or wish) for this mediation to continue? SchmuckyTheCat 22:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what I've been wondering is that, given you've all gone back to making contentious edits, bickering, and reverting, do any of you still want mediation to continue? Or are you happy as it is now? Has anyone noticed that I haven't said anything here for days? I was wondering if you'd keep the ceasefire intact. I was disappointed. I'll give an ultimatum: is everyone still willing to make a concerted effort here and (god forbid) even give up some ground, to reach an agreement? Or do you like the prospect of being systematically banned from all the articles where you edit war, under the soon-to-be-imposed arbcom probation provisions? Dmcdevit·t 23:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You arent the only one dissapointed if this one fails. I certainly hope that this page is filed together with the arbcom process so that administraters can actually refer to this and see for themselves how "dispute resolution" takes place here. Efforts by those willing to mediate, and those who are throwing obstacles in its path should be recognised and noted. I dont think this should be in vain at all.

What is the "arbcom probation provisions"? If it means we are banned form all edit war articles, then great. Let the wars begin, for our total removal is probably far more benefitial then anything else!--Huaiwei 04:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Probation. It means any of you can be banned by any admin from any particular articles where you are deemed disruptive (ie edit warring). I'll be keeping an eye out mediation or no. Dmcdevit·t 04:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]