On the Talk:China page which I requested to rename the articles China to People’s Republic of China and Taiwan to Republic of China because Two Chinas exist, the change was turned down per WP:COMMONNAME. In addition to above, because a dozen edits on the PRC-ROC articles were constantly reverted most of the time, I am calling for the 30/500 enforcement on any China-related articles similar to the Arab-Israeli conflict arbitration and the ones found at India-Pakistan. Although I am not good with long words, the scope would target Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Taiwan-related articles such as the Tibet Area (administrative division) reverted by User:Kautilya3 without consensus.

—Silence of Lambs (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Félix An

I think this restriction is reasonable if people are swiftly reverting edits without consensus. It seems reasonable to have WP:ECP on controversial articles where editors might be trying to get their way so much. Félix An (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JMonkey2006

I don't think that opening an arbitration case is necessary. Consensus may change in the future, but for now I think that this debate has concluded. JMonkey2006 (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DrIdiot

Content dispute as others are saying. The initiator is welcome to begin discussions on the talk pages where their edits were reverted. In most cases, the edits ignored existing discussions and consensus (some of which were recently active on talk). No attempt to discuss on talk, other than the linked move request, was attempted. DrIdiot (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chipmunkdavis

Statement by Matt Smith

As mentioned by an user in Talk:China#Arbitration_discussion, arbitration deals with conduct issues. While the request starter's reasoning is understandable, this page might not be the place to discuss content dispute issues. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DMacks

Editorial dispute went through new editor bold-edit against discussed consensus, reverted, new discussion that had same conclusion as usual. The only request made here is for WP:ECP, no evidence is provided to support this administrative measure, and it doesn't need Arbcom (no evidence it was not solveable at WP:AN). I do not see enough disruption to merit it on the articles the filer has BRDed or widespread disruption in the scope they request. DMacks (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ched

@Silence of Lambs: seems to have skipped a couple steps (notifications and DR link), I've gone ahead and done the necessities. Normally I wouldn't think this was ripe, but Dispute Resolution seems to be a very minor and relaxed requirement these days. — Ched (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Ivanvector

Purely a content dispute. Filer proposed a move, their proposal was discussed and did not pass. That's it, that's the whole incident; several of the participants even gave Silence of Lambs advice in their comments. No evidence of disruption or abuse has been offered that would suggest the need for discretionary sanctions here. Committee should swiftly decline and move on. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (mostly uninvolved) RandomCanadian

I don't see evidence of long term edit warring or disruptive editing which would require the intervention of ArbCom. Suggest decline on that aspect, since this is therefore a pure content dispute. As to the requested move; don't see what is wrong with editors disagreeing. If Silence had instead contacted me via talk page (article or my own) I might have given a wee further explanation for my SNOW close, but given they've already escalated here, I am standing by it. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Elli

I don't really see why this is necessary. We don't need discretionary sanctions on every potentially controversial topic area. There is no clear issue here. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

On seeing the title of this case request, I thought that I might say that some topic areas are the subjects of battleground editing because they have tragically been real battlegrounds in history, and that the plague of Wikipedia is nationalism. On reading the short history of this case request, it does not appear that there has been enough nationalistic editing to require discretionary sanctions. I have not reviewed the case to see whether this is a content dispute or whether it also has conduct aspects, but it is either a content dispute requiring content resolution, or a conduct dispute that can be dealt with otherwise, or both. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deepfriedokra - It is fortunate for some combative filers at ArbCom that ArbCom doesn't work like WP:ANI, and doesn't accept a case only with the objective of sanctioning the filer. We know that "Filing party blocked indef" is a common conclusion at ANI.

User:Jargo Nautilus - The nationalism that I was saying is a plague in Wikipedia is the refighting of wars. Discretionary sanctions are often used to stop the refighting of wars. I think that we are saying almost the same thing.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cupcake547

This restriction is very reasonable, if people revert and revert without consensus on controversial articles, but there isn't as much going on in the past few days. Cupcake547^{Let's chat!} 19:14, 12 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Deepfriedokra

I was going to say this and held back. It is ironic that filer is asking for DS for this subject area as they are the one closest to being disruptive. I urge them to seek WP:dispute resolution and to be less forceful if asserting their opinions. Based on filer's conduct, I'm not sure ArbCom should not hear this case. Other parties have shown great restrain in not taking this mater to ANI. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

I suppose you're close enough to an official "decline" that this doesn't matter, but I'm not sure how this is different from the other cases where a clerk just comes along and says "removed as obviously premature per clerks list". I always thought that was a smart innovation. Even a nothingburger like this has probably eaten up several person-hours by now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved) Jargo Nautilus

I'm a user who is not directly involved in the dispute. On Robert McClenon's comments about "nationalism", I will say that I personally draw the line when blood is drawn. I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policy is on this matter, but many of these controversial issues, especially regarding nationalism, often involve either historical, potential or ongoing genocides. At the end of the day, I will always object when innocent people are slaughtered on the basis of nationalism. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the case at hand, I believe that there is an attempt being made at gas-lighting here. The premise that there is no consensus on the issues at hand simply because a few editors disagree with it is dubious. The number of editors who agree with the consensus far outnumber the number who disagree, whether that minority of editors like it or not. The definition of a consensus is not "all people agree", it is only "most people agree". And there is no real justification to escalate the dispute to this place. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

China-Taiwan articles: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Floquenbeam, regarding not sure how this is different from the other cases where a clerk just comes along and says "removed as obviously premature per clerks list": those removals are made with arb concurrence. I assume we just haven't had an arb email the clerk list to say "remove this as premature" (or a clerk email the list to ask if we can remove this as premature). Haven't checked my WP email today though, it's possible there's discussion that I haven't seen yet. ^{SubjectiveNotability} _{a GN franchise} (talk to the boss) 16:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To add to the above statement, for a clerk to remove a case as premature an arbitrator has to confirm removal and usually a clerk prompts the arbitrators about removal. In this case, the arbitrators had already started voting to decline by the time I saw the case request so I did not see much need to ask them if they would like the case removed as premature. Regardless, as the request is at majority decline it can be closed tomorrow morning UTC (48 hours since it was filed) so not much more editor time should be spent on this. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~As all arbitrators are now back to active, a majority is now reached with 8 arbitrators and as such the case request can only be declined after 14:30 tomorrow instead of in the morning.~~ Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I actually stand corrected on that, as the wording is "mathematically impossible for the case to be accepted" which is essentially half of the arbitrators need to decline instead of a majority of arbitrators need to decline. As all 14 are active now, 7 declines means that we can now close. I also realise that the 24 hours since a decline was reached actually isn't present in declining a case request, so regardless of whether is a majority or not the case request can be closed as declined now. I will do that now. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

China-Taiwan articles: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/8/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Decline. No behavioral issues, appears to be just a content dispute. I suggest withdrawing. Regards So Why 13:17, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, content dispute. Maxim_(talk) 13:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per above. – bradv🍁 14:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline though I've sometimes wondered if we haven't reached the point where we have enough evidence that politics and nationalism of any stripe need DS. But I'll think about that some more and post more about that over here. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good point by Kevin. Even if this weren't a content dispute I'd have wanted to see dispute resolution first. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, as a content dispute and because no conduct dispute resolution has been attempted. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Per all the above. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that something that doesn't seem clear to a number of people commenting here is that you do not need arbcom to make a decision about a couple of pages being put under EC protection. If we did take this case, (which we obviously are not going to) it would be a month-long highly-involved process to make a decision that an admin can make on their own based ona simple talk page discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline The matter has hardly exhausted its routes of appeal. As is, the only one that seems to be disruptive here is Silence of Lambs, who has been pushing against a pretty clear community consensus. A case feels like it would most likely WP:BOOMERANG, and I suggest Silence examine how they are going about their goals before they get hoisted by their own petard. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]