Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/TingMing/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

TingMing engages in edit warring
TingMing has been engaging in edit warring over several articles concerning the political status of Taiwan. For this, he was blocked 24hrs for 3RR violation.

Proof #1: initial edit revert 1a revert 1b revert 2a revert 2b revert 3a revert 3b

TingMing's edit summary in his last revert (b) shows that he knows the three-revert rule, but fails to understand that 3RR is not "an entitlement to revert three times each day... Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three edits in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive".

Proof #2: initial edit revert revert by TM revert revert by TM revert (unrelated interference: revert by someone else revert by an IP user) revert by TM

initial edit revert by TM revert revert by TM

The above two sets of diffs shows the following:
 * There are at least four other editors who favor more in their reverted version than the reverted version by TingMing.
 * The article is only one of the many articles that TingMing has edited. The contents in their edits are similar in general. Examples: Guantian, Tainan, National Sun Yat-sen University, Cingshuei, Taichung.
 * Other than this edit, TingMing has rarely participated in discussion concerning the naming conventions. His only diff in talk page suggests more as an assertion than as an opinion.
 * Per above, TingMing has failed to withdraw from/resolve the edit warring in a peaceful way.

TingMing makes personal attacks/assumes bad faith
TingMing has made several verbal attacks against other editors who disagree with his opinions. Sometimes he also urged his opponents to assume good faith on him and his edits while accusing them at the same time.

Proof #1:  

He accuses Ideogram for being "extremely counter productive", and attempts to fan up supports for him by incriminating Ideogram in both Ideogram's and another user's talk page.

Proof #2: Initial attack; reverted as attack message, reverted his attack message back, etc.

Some reminders about this revert-attack war:
 * WP:NPA has made it clear that one should "Comment on content, not on the contributor".
 * The ArbCom has ruled that, although it may be offensive, a user can remove comments on his/her talk page.
 * Quoting from Certified.Gansta-Ideogram decisions proposal : "Wikipedia editors are expected to adhere to policy regardless of the behavior of those they are in disputes with; inappropriate behavior by others does not legitimize one's own."

Per the above, TingMing committed both the 3RR violation and the WP:NPA policy.

Proof #3: 

While threatening to report Ideogram to an administrator, he urged him to assume good faith while he himself is not.

 

TingMing brings up unfounded suspicion of sockpuppetry upon User:Jerrypp772000 and me. If necessary, I welcome an RFCU case filed against either Jerrypp772000 or me. If proven wrong, however, it would suggest his tendency to pull out baseless accusations against other editors who go against his edits.



He urged us to assume good faith while trying to reinterpret the RFCU case result into his own flavor. In the RFCU, while it suggests TingMing to be a "possible" sockpuppet of currently blocked User:Nationalist (who is also known for abusing sockpuppetry), he argues that the RFCU "has proven [his] innocence" and "confirming [he] was not Nationalist".
 * Stop twisting this RFCU in your own favor. Thus far, I have not been a confirmed sock puppet of Nationalist. Do not put me on the same level as him. Do not treat me badly. I am not Nationalist, I swear. Why hasn't anyone else performed another Check user then? To Clear my NAME. By the way, Nationalist uses another Internet Service Provider than I did. It is impossible that I am Nationalist. Please check on the Check User page for Nationalist to confirm what I just said. TingMing 23:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

TingMing debates rather than discusses with others
TingMing intends to push his political opinion through everyone's mind as much as possible, and therefore refuses to accept other people's point of view.

Proof:

As he stated, "It is not for you ordinary person to decide whether the ROC is a sovereign state or not. There is no point for having ordinary folk to discuss whether the ROC is a country or not. Because you guys have no authority to do that." I believe that, in Wikipedia, we achieve as much NPOV as possible through constructive discussions, not through decisive debates for the winner. It is apparent that TingMing has no intentions to look at the matter on other people's angles, and thus diminishes the possibility for an actual consensus.



Besides the apparent bad-faith assumption ("Too bad for you TIers"), he said that "Consensus is against establishment of a Taiwan Republic." The problem, however, is that consensus plays a very important role in achieving as much NPOV as possible in Wikipedia since a perfect NPOV is impossible ("a view from nowhere"). His statement strongly suggests his disapproval that the Wikipedia policies and standards apply to him, therefore making him even more impossible to discuss with others for a "Consensus".

There is strong evidence to suggest TingMing is another sockpuppet of Nationalist
There is significant evidence suggesting that is the latest sockpuppet of, who was blocked numerous times for incivility, 3RR violation, and numerous instances of block evasion using sockpuppets. This has resulted in the latest block on Nationalist being reset and extended twice since February of this year due to sockpuppetry. Some sockpuppets include:

Notice the common editing patterns, disregard for consensus, and incivility towards other editors. Nationalist has in the past attempted to thwart CheckUser attempts by utilizing different IP blocks, possibly via various anonymizers or proxies. Later socks have been quick to call for CheckUser requests to "prove his innocence", though the behavior of the sockpuppets is too consistant to be a coincidence. More details may be found on Requests for checkuser/Case/Nationalist. All taken into consideration, there is more than ample evidence to justify an immediate ban on TingMing as a Nationalist sockpuppet being used for block evasion.

Please do not twist this to your own liking. Check user determined that I am of a different ISP, not the same as Nationalist or any one of his sock puppets. TingMing 00:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

TingMing has political motives
As you can see in 's contribution page, every edit he has made is political. I'm sure that there might be three or four exceptions but this is serious. There are two main types of political edits TingMing makes:

In this diff, TingMing tries to make this non-political article political. Not only that it was non-political, but there was also an agreement reached here.
 * Making non-political articles political

More evidences: ,

Despite the fact that Taiwan is the common name of the ROC, TingMing's excessive replacement of these terms seems disruptive. See Vic226's evidences (or just see TingMing's contribution page, the edits are all similar).--Jerrypp772000 19:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Replacing Taiwan with Republic of China


 * I do not just randomly replace Taiwan with the Republic of China. Occasionally that may be necessary because having Taiwan only would be incorrect. I always incorporate Taiwan, such as Guantian, Taiwan, Republic of China. The country is still Republic of China. Taiwan is merely an administrative province. TingMing 03:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

TingMing may be a zealot, but is nevertheless honest
My only interaction with TingMing has been a question about Frank Hsieh's recent nomination by the DPP to run for President of the ROC. After he removed the sourced statement about Hsieh winning the primary, I left a brief note on his talk page asking about the removal. Without complaint or protest he put the statement back and informed me that the removal was accidental. For those of you who aren't familiar with Taiwan politics, Frank Hsieh represents a party that is diabolically opposed to the "pan-blue" camp, which TingMing appears to be part of/sympathizes with. So at least in this one instance, TingMing is editing in good faith and is capable of putting his own views aside. I base my claim that he's most likely deep blue based on his edit (since reverted by another editor) to Legal status of Taiwan. In terms of the disputed naming convention for all things Taiwan, I would like to note that deep blue supporters have noted that calling the ROC "Taiwan" is mildly POV pushing (by implying that "Taiwan" is a state). Since no consensus was ever reached regarding the naming convention, to punish him based on the naming controversy alone would be unfair. However, I do not condone edit warring, and frankly, until a consensus is reached regarding the naming of things related to Taiwan, constantly changing the names is a waste of resources.Ngchen 12:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

TingMing edits in bad faith
I have been involved with TingMing only a short time, but I immediately found him unpleasant. I will not repeat the more detailed statements above, but he refuses to accept others may have a valid viewpoint. Also accusing others for vandalism should not be done lightly. In all seriousness, Ting's insistence Taiwan be refered to as "ROC on Taiwan" is just bad English and does nothing to help clarify the confusion over the term "Republic of China". So to accuse others of vandalism because he doesn't agree with the edits is very bad faith.

Equally he seems to believe that everyone who wants to use "Taiwan" or "ROC (Taiwan)" is a "Pan Green" supporter - i.e. of the pro-independence parties in Taiwan. I cannot speak for the other editors, but I'm not even Taiwanese. Labelling people who disagree with him like that really demonstrates he has an attitude problem that needs addressing.

I also find his complaints over the name changes for Central Bank of the Republic of China (Taiwan) quite ridiculous. He is using the flimsy excuse of another website refering to it in a certain way, when the bank itself now calls it that. Again, flying in the face of all evidence is unreasonable. John Smith&#39;s 10:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

TingMing assumes bad faith, makes no allowance for other POVs, and strongly pushes his own POV
While I, too, have only been involved with TingMing for a short while, I have also found him to be a most unpleasant person. Not only does he engage in edit-warring with other editors, so as to push his personal POV, he does not engage in any meaningful dialogue to come to a consensus on controversial issues. For example, in the discussion on Chinese naming conventions, he was remarkably absent for a long period of time, until jumping in at the end to accuse everyone else of being of a specific POV (in this case, pro-Taiwan independence). Recently, Ting edited the article on Hsiao Bi-khim here to reflect his own opinions of her, her ancestry, and other unsourced rumor. Not only are his additions irrelevant to the article, they're also a personal attack on a figure he doesn't seem to like. Another example of his putting ad hominem rumors in an article about someone he doesn't seem to like is found in his addition to the Yu Shyi-kun article here. Also, without any discussion at all, he unilaterally decided to move Nanking Massacre to his own newly-created Rape of Nanking, and redirect the old page to the new. This certainly violates the letter and spirit of the rules of controversial moves, is not a NPOV, and is par for the course for Ting.
 * Stop making random assertions and assumptions. So much for good faith. I have no opinion on Hsiao or Yu. Stop saying that I hate him, because that is a lie. A lie is made by a liar. And you made the lie. Someone needs to point out that Hsiao is of mixed ethnicity but the DPP doctrine supports Native Taiwanese only. For Yu, it is actually sourced. I saw it on the news. I dont go randomly make up stuff. I think you are unclear about the whole Republic of China articles/stuff. So stop trying to stop those who know from contributing. And stop making false accusations and lies. You really hurt my feelings. You should go discuss instead of insulting and attacking and hurting me. TingMing 01:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ting makes personal attacks
What troubles me most is that Ting often viciously attacks other editors, going so far as to attempt to insult them here and here and here and especially here.

Please also see this recently added comment as evidence of Ting's pattern of attacking those with whom he disagrees.

Conclusion
I can't add much to what's already been said by the others here. I'd strongly subscribe to and associate myself with the comments made by Vic, Loren, Jerry, and John Smith's, all of whom have their own opinions (as I do), but all of whom are reasonable, dignified, and courteous in their discussion and discourse (which TingMing isn't).

TingMing has not offered any conclusive evidence nor rebutted his opponent's statements.
Although I'm uninvolved, I have read the statements and stuff, and I find it very unusual that all TingMing has done in this evidence page is deride his opponents' statements as a lie, readd the same rebuttal, and basically not provide any conclusive evidence in the form of diffs. He has not even started a section of evidence, as it were. Here are his edits to this page:     .

While this really isn't a major assertion, and is rather obvious, I do find that this undermines the credibility TingMing is providing for himself.  bibliomaniac 1  5  An age old question... 05:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.