Case Opened on 03:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 17:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Instantnood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Phroziac (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Huaiwei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Prior cases

Statement by SchmuckyTheCat

Instantnood has not changed his behavior since the last arbitration case was closed. So far he has racked up 9 page bans in 9 days.

In fact, his behavior has gotten worse. He's chosen not just to continue edit warring behavior, but to purposefully instigate edit wars. Each day he is choosing to go back (in some cases as old as several months) and make the same edits that were reversed the first time.

An important finding of the last case was that Instantnood "is reminded to make useful edit summaries". He isn't. He has continued to make very contentious edits (such as renaming political entities) without anything at all as an edit summary.

I've chosen, mostly, not to engage him. Huaiwei has not and has been equally page banned and admonished by administrators. However, a glance at Instantnood's edit history reveals it would be impossible to use established dispute resolution techniques because of the sheer number of problem edits. (See evidence below, are we supposed to file 17 article RFCs per day?) Huaiwei wouldn't be involved if Instantnood wasn't making the problem edits in the first place.

Evidence: Look at Instantnood's edit history for 20 January 2006. (And go back as many days as you want, it's all the same pattern every single day).

Discarding any talk page discussion are 24 edits to articles, categories, or templates. An astonishing seventeen of them are reverts. 71% reverts? Only one revert has any talk page discussion.

9 edits have no edit summary whatsoever, including reverts. Only a handful of the remainder are useful to anyone not involved in his dispes.

Evidence of re-igniting old disputes: [1] [2] [3]

Statement by Instantnood

 (Please limit your statement to 500 words)

Statement by Phroziac

I recently blocked Huaiwei and Instantnood for 24 hours for their ForestFire activity, and asked them to stop. Instantnood said he doesn't think it'll help to reach an eventual resolution[4]. The edit wars he's causing are *incredibly* silly. A quick look at the edit histories of several pages he has edited recently all shows obvious edit warring. This really needs to stop. Perhaps a temporary injunction preventing him from reverting would be helpful. --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 18:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC) (edited 18:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/0/1/0)

Recuse, as past mediator. Dmcdevit·t 05:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy for us to accept, but I would like to take the opportunity to point out that sysops are (and have always been) empowered to block people for being useless. James F. (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Like James, I'll accept if necessary. Nevertheless, can't we just extend Instantnood 2 to allow escalating blocks for such behaviour? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto: accept, and let's point out in our decision that this sort of trouble should be handled locally ➥the Epopt 18:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. - SimonP 21:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Fred Bauder 15:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept mostly to expand scope of previous decisions if required. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 20:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision