Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3

message: Schmucky's points are well taken.  However, I feel that Huaiwei should be enjoined in this action as well neither of them have gotten the message that the edit warring has to stop.  Instead, it has only spread.  I do not agree that Instant is always looking to start a war but the three cases pointed out by Schmucky are telling and I promptly banned Instant from editing those cats when I read this filing.
However, Schmucky correctly dealt with this situation by filing Arb (although I think he could have also notified an admin).  Huaiwei never acts in such a thoughtful manner, he too has initiated re-ignition of old debates    , prefers to follow Instant about reverting him  (an interesting case where Schmucky started it actually), refusing to stop the edit warring    and in general ignores any pleas (  ) for him to stop.  Before this recent round of bans he has been banned from 10 articles by three different admins  with no signs of stopping.  Instead of heeding the pleas for him to stop he chooses to engage in lengthy debates about it with whichever admin will make the mistake of trying to talk to him about it   .
Unfortunately I am afraid all efforts to get both Instantnood and Huaiwei to reform their behaviors have failed and more drastic measures are required.  --Wgfinley 19:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Wgfinley|Wgfinley]]

message: There's already a motion down below to extend the Instantnood and Huaiwei probation to cover all articles (not just China-related ones.)  Might I suggest additional motions of the approximate formula
:Should Instantnood/Huaiwei engage in edit warring, they may be blocked for up to one week by any administrator.  After the fifth such block, they may be blocked for up to one year...
or something to that effect?  It would save the paperwork of opening another ArbCom case, could be tacked on to Instantnood 2, and would get this section off the RFArb page.  If the ArbCom wants to address any other issues(?) beyond the edit warring, then this suggestion perhaps wouldn't work. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrespective of my opinion towards the above suggestion, I had been blocked for two weeks, and user:Huaiwei is currently under a ten-day block . — Instantnood 08:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion by [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]] 

message: Given their continued and incessent edit warring and article bans at a clip of more than one a day I have blocked both Instantnood and Huaiwei for 7 days effective immediately.  Notice has been posted on their talk pages  , on AN/I  and on their block/ban log from their probation ruling .  --Wgfinley 20:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *There is apparantly no reason good enough for evading an IP block.--Huaiwei 21:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No good reason, and apparently no meaningful consequence either. SchmuckyTheCat 21:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No matter you agree or not, I've clearly stated why it was necessary to do so. If the technology of the Wiki software allows, blocked users should be allowed to take part in discussions that have time limits that she/he has joined prior to the block. Or else, alternatively, the discussion should automatically be extended. — Instantnood 21:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that RFARs are required to conclude in a specified time period. Even if so, I'm sure the arbitrators would have sufficient common sense to allow for reasonable time for your response. enochlau (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I did was putting some evidence to a CfR discussion. It has a time limit. — Instantnood 08:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 7 Day Blocks

message: wgfinley has made a suggestion in the filing that Huaiwei be included.  His suggestion was moved to this talk page.  On the evidence page, he's including evidence against Huaiwei.  Can we get some instruction from ArbCom about whether Huaiwei is included?  
I'd really prefer that Huaiwei not be included and suggest that if wgfinley has a case to make against Huaiwei's action that he bring up a case against him.  The last ArbCom case was a huge mess that took a record amount of time to complete partly because it was trying to involve anyone and everyone.  In this case against Instantnood I really tried for clarity and brevity, and not adding extra people or throwing every possible charge at them.  wgfinley's evidence overwhelms that. SchmuckyTheCat 18:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may say so, I think that if this case were to exclude Huaiwei, the result would be manifestly unfair as it may result in additional constraints on Instantnood while relieving Huaiwei of the scrutiny he deserves. While you may suggest that this case be restricted to Instantnood for clarity, Instantnood's actions, at times, arise from his interactions with Huaiwei; Instantnood's actions should be considered in their proper context. enochlau (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do hope a quick decision may be made with regards to my status in this case. Thanks!--Huaiwei 21:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If Huaiwei is "relieved of the scrutiny he deserves" then open a case against him.  Huaiwei is only one of half a dozen wikipedians to have regular run-ins with Instantnood.  Sure, he's under the same prohibitions, but other users are involved with more revert wars than Huaiwei.  It's clear the center of the controversy is 'nood.  Including Huaiwei and other users in this case makes a big giant spaghetti mess.  So I say again: if there is a case against Huaiwei, myself, or anyone else, make that case separately.  I'd like Instantnood looked at independently, please. SchmuckyTheCat 21:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Irrespective of my position, it has to be pointed out that the arbitrators had not expressed their support, or opposition, towards the request to include user:Huaiwei. Clarification is necessary. — Instantnood 09:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: wgfinley on Huaiwei

message: I move that the restrictions, now over a year old, from the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3 case on editor Huaiwei be lifted.  While Huaiwei appears to have been involved in some edit wars and has received a number of 3RR blocks, I do not believe that the probation and limits on participation remain relevant at this point. (Proposed by arbitration UninvitedCompany
:Passed 6 to 4, 19:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Motion