Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/TingMing/Workshop

This is a page for working on arbitration decisions. The arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions&mdash;the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Addressing the larger problem
1) It seems to me that these edit wars seem to be a symptom of a larger problem: that there is no commonly agreed upon naming standard for ROC/Taiwan related articles, as the relevant section of the Chinese naming conventions are and have been disputed for a long time. Past discussions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China have been inconclusive, and standards on Wikipedia vary depending upon article and subject (e.g. South Korea over Republic of Korea, and Republic of Ireland vs. Ireland). I believe that short term sanctions on edit warring parties are ineffective until we address the root cause of the problem. Therefore, I propose that we take this opportunity to come to a binding agreement upon these naming standards with the support of ArbCom as a neutral body. -Loren 00:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I think this is a good idea. TingMing has been telling me to follow the conventions while reverting my edits. Vic226 told TingMing several times that the conventions are disputed, but TingMing would not stop using it as an excuse. To stop TingMing from disrupting, a new naming standard would be effective.--Jerrypp772000 00:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * To me, this place does not seem to be a good place to discuss for a naming consensus. The issue has to be addressed to all who are concerned about it, and the arbitration page is not quite a very eye-catching place for them to notice about this.  Vic  226說 05:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Perhaps I should clarify that my idea involves asking ArbCom to participate in a formal discussion on the Project page as a disinterested third party. -Loren 05:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * ArbCom is supposed to interpret the will of the community, no more and no less. The current status of the naming convention debate is that a large number of active members of WPCHINA do not wish to change anything, and they are unwilling to participate in the debate.  Thus the issue is essentially stalled.  I do not think there is any useful role for ArbCom in this situation.  --Ideogram 11:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Global search, edit/replace, and protect-revert
1) Regarding this edit, TingMing should be immediately restricted from editing article pages that may have anything to do with political status of Taiwan and, if necessary, be forced to engage in discussions instead of debates. Without delay. Also, per his recent contribs, his persistent behavior along with some other editors will only create more global edit wars all over Wikipedia, mainly with Jerrypp772000 (whom some may have identified as another extreme POV-pusher), while the arbitration slouches on.  Vic  226說 05:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * To Loren: I promise that I won't make any political edit from now on until the Arbitration is complete. However, I think I should be able to edit those articles.--Jerrypp772000 19:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Should ArbCom decide to accept this injunction, I will hold you to it. -Loren 20:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, let me make it clear. By not making any political edit I meant that I won't edit anything that is involved with the "Taiwan vs. ROC" issue. I forgot and edited Frank Hsieh "politically", from now on I will not make any political edit.--Jerrypp772000 21:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * 1) Conditional Agreement. In the interest of facilitating a constructive dialouge dialogue, User:Jerrypp772000 should also be restricted from editing such articles until Arbitration is complete. There's more than enough bad blood going around at the time being, it seems prudent to order a temporary halt to the edit warring. -Loren 08:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Conditional Agreement. I agree with Loren's position (except to spell it "dialogue" :-P). --Folic Acid 20:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. -Loren 22:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties
=Proposed final decision=

NPOV and consensus
1) In the case where fact is only relative to viewpoints of different groups and has no concrete references, NPOV can only be reached through discussion from different parties of own POV (in this case, they can possibly be Taiwan Independence supporters, Nationalists, One-China supporters, and outsiders). No party should define his own POV as indisputable facts while rejecting the validity of other parties' POVs. In other words, rejecting opinions that disagree with one's own is neither an option nor a way of conduct for a constructive discussion. (references: )   Vic  226說 09:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Agreed -Loren 00:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Heartily Agreed --Folic Acid 12:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Assuming Good Faith
2) Constructive discussion is facilitated only when involved parties behave in a civil manner, respecting each other's right to diverging points of view, even if they do not necessarily agree. Repeatedly accusing other editors with different POVs of engaging in a bad faith conspiracy, or labeling editors with other viewpoints as being proponents of some standpoint (be it "facists", "commies", "splittists"... etc), are not helpful in creating an environment suited for good faith discussion. Refs:, , . -Loren 00:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agreed--Jerrypp772000 01:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Agreed --Folic Acid 12:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Policies and Guidelines Apply Equally to All Editors
3) Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines apply equally to all editors and edits, regardless of position or viewpoint. No editor is exempt from the agreed upon guidelines of good faith, civility, and seeking consensus, and all information in articles should be verifiable based on reliable sources. -Loren 01:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Agreed --Folic Acid 12:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Discuss first, edit second
4) When there is a conflict of interest in editing Wikipedia articles, one should engage in a constructive discussion for a consensus before making any more changes. One should not continue edit warring for his own opinion when a consensus is yet to be reached in an active discussion. This includes the discouragement from presuming only one correct POV.  Vic  226說 03:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Heartily Agreed --Folic Acid 12:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed -Loren 00:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Template
5) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
6) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
7) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

TingMing makes over-generalization on his opponents
1) TingMing has accused multiple users with various reasons for voicing their own opinions that he disagrees. Recently, he made an ABF along with derogatory remarks against John Smith's for editing against his taste. Also, he has made an over-generalization that states everyone who is against him is a "TIer" (i.e. Taiwan-Independence supporter). He also went overboard into accusing an administrator for "summoning supports" from others whom he instinctively called "TIers". Also, he accused Jerrypp772000 for using my account as a sockpuppet without any basis, since he himself is found possible for being yet another sockpuppet of Nationalist. Vic 226說 09:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:


 * 1) Agreed Ting does make generalisations and bad-faith comments against people he disagrees with. This is clear to anyone who checks his history. John Smith&#39;s 11:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Agreed We all have our own personal viewpoints and no one is perfect. It's one thing to express concern over someone else's edits, but insulting and labeling editors who do so, insinuating some type of conspiracy is quite another. -Loren 04:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Agreed Ting seems to assume bad faith in edits, going so far as to make ad hominem attacks on other editors (see here).  --Folic Acid 12:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

TingMing rejects validity of all opposing POVs
2) From his interactions with other editors, he has been persistently fighting for the sake of correctness based solely on his own POV. Multiple usages of extreme adjectives/adverbs can be found in his comments, such as "Actually you are wrong", "entirely wrong" and "completely unacceptable".  Vic  226說 04:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * 1) Agreed He is unwilling to discuss peacefully, and sometimes engages in personal attacks towards people who have a different POV.--Jerry 21:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * 1) Agreed Edit history shows constant unwillingness to compromise, engage in constructive dialouge. -Loren 04:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Agreed Per above. John Smith&#39;s 09:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Agreed Ting seems bound and determined to force his own POV on everyone else with little or no meaningful discussion, nor with the possibility that any other POVs are relevant to the issue of the day.  --Folic Acid 12:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Tingming has political motive
3) TingMing has shown in several occasions that he lets his own political notion take over everything as primary, along with his remarks on others as "pan-Green" users. His comments has displayed his obsessions for Nationalism (sounds familiar?), such as this, this and this.  Vic  226說 04:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * 1) Agreed--Jerrypp772000 20:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * 1) Agreed --Folic Acid 12:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Agreed Although I will not comment on the issue of whether he is User:Nationalist or not, Ting does appear to be overly influened by his own political views, to the point where he insists on edits that are poor English, such as "Republic of China on Taiwan" rather than "Republic of China (Taiwan)". On a related topic, he also too frequently sees people through a political viewpoint, especially when he labels others who disagrees with him. John Smith&#39;s 14:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently there is a conspiracy to equate me to Nationalist. That was what the above was phrased to be. John Smith this is a special situation. There is no way to get around it. You cannot simply judge something based on grammar and English. Having just Republic of China is fine then. I will have no problem with that. Or some disambiguation after Republic of China saying it has been based on the island of Taiwan since 1949 would also be fine. Republic of China (Taiwan) is not good either. TingMing 04:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:CABAL. This is the third time someone has suggested you to read this.  Vic  226說 05:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not the one to say that TingMing is definitely a sockpuppet of Nationalist, either. The above was not intended to equate them together, but to point out the fact that his possibility of being one cannot be ruled out completely, let along their consistent behaviors and edit patterns. Even though he claims not to be one, it's not for him to decide that, anyway.  Vic  226說 04:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

TingMing consistently misrepresents comments from others
4) TingMing commonly misrepresents comments from other parties to engage in personal attacks / provide illusion of support for own arguments, even after other parties have provided clarification of the points in question. Examples: 1) In Requests for arbitration/TingMing, regarding sockpuppet allegations claimed "the Check user has confirmed that I am Not" when actual result was possible (again: ). 2) Claiming other editors were trying to replace "ROC" with "Taiwan" everywhere, misrepresenting the intent of disambiguation, when the general consensus was actually to limit inclusions of "(Taiwan)" as disambiguation in references to state / official organs, and limit the use of "Taiwan" to nonpolitical and geographical contexts.-Loren 04:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * 1) That is ironic. Loren36 was the first one to accuse me of plastering Republic of China everywhere. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28Chinese%29&diff=130655988&oldid=130651605And I DID NOT say that people were plastering Taiwan all over. I said some people. Loren36 directly insulted me and I am seriously hurt by her actions. This is a complete disregard and trampling over my human rights. TingMing 23:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A quick glance at your editing history shows a consistant pattern of dismissing concerns by other parties, and pushing your own personal interpretation as "The Truth" (TM), not open to discussion with other concerned parties. This was pointed out by other editors long before I became involved with the issue. As I have told you before, I take issue not with your beliefs, but your behavior and attitude towards other editors.  If you feel "seriously hurt" by others pointing out problems with your behavior, perhaps you would do well to consider how others feel with equally, if not more offensive comments and accusations you have made:   . As it says on WP:CABAL: "When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you." Courtesy is a two way street. -Loren 00:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Agreed--Jerry 18:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:


 * 1) Agreed Instances in several discussions has shown that he repeatedly fails to identify and respond to the points made by other editors, such as the one Loren provided in the last part.   Vic  226說 06:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Agreed Per above comments. John Smith&#39;s 10:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Agreed Per above.  --Folic Acid 12:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) It's hard to tell what's intentional and what isn't.  TingMing has certainly made statements that distort the truth, but it is still possible he actually believes what he's saying.  What I'm trying to say is it's not a good idea to presume we know other people's intentions as that would be mind-reading.  --Ideogram 22:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see your point, and have modified the proposal accordingly. Intentional or not, this is still an important problem that I feel needs to be addressed. -Loren 23:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Template
5) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
6) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
7) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
8) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

TingMing banned from editing Taiwan politics-related articles
1) Per his consistent blanket editing on articles relating to legal status of Taiwan, TingMing is banned from editing them for a period of one year, or until a consensus is reached for any and every dispute. This does not limit his ability to participate in discussions in all talk pages.  Vic  226說 06:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * 1) Agreed TingMing does only political edits, this will help.--Jerry 20:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

TingMing admonished
2) TingMing is admonished for POV-pushing (a.k.a. rejecting validity of all opposing POVs), making personal attacks/assuming bad faith, and edit warring against other editors.  Vic  226說 07:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
5) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
6) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
7) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
8) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
9) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
5) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

There exists a consistent blanket editing by TingMing while a consensus is still underway

 * Note: this is in reflect to Blnguyen's interest for more evidence of sustained edit-warring .

In Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese), under the section Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese), it is no less than obvious that there are excessively extensive discussions concerning the issue that all of us have been tackling on. The discussion continues into Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese), where a table of guideline for naming conventions was proposed for open comments. Besides me, the involving parties include but not limited to Jerry, Loren, and even TingMing. In the Naming conventions page, while most editors were on the same page—with a few others lightly disagreeing on specific subjects—it was mainly TingMing who has been sustaining the discussions this long with strong objections to virtually all of the proposed guidelines. Although TingMing is aware of the ongoing discussion for a final consensus, he continues to blanket edit all articles related to legal status of Taiwan (see his contribs; there are always some edits on normal articles for each day) even after he was warned for more than once to refrain from making unilateral edits/moves while a consensus is yet to be reached. Per the above, it shows that while he is aware of the ongoing discussion in Naming conventions talk page for a consensus, he has never refrained from continued blanket edit warring over Wikipedia on this issue. While he isn't exactly violating 3RR in a literal way (aka reverting three times a day on the same article), continuation of such behavior over a long period of time is unacceptable per Wikipedia's ruling of WP:EDITWAR and WP:DR. Vic 226說 06:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * As one of the editors that Vic didn't mention, I can honestly say that I'm very frustrated with Ting's apparent lack of respect for any other editor that doesn't share his views, and his obvious unwillingness to even try to come to some sort of consensus on naming conventions. Every other editor but him has agreed to participate in the discussion in a collegial way, and to refrain from making overtly political edits.  Ting has not agreed, but rather continues to push his own POV regarding how names should be displayed, despite our lively and thorough discussion laying out the consensus opinion.  --Folic Acid 06:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Justification for blocks
Originally posted on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/TingMing/Workshop in response to allegations of dubious administrative action.

Discussion was well in progress on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) and I was able to secure assurances from Jerry that he would refrain from making political edits while the discussion was in progress. Ting continued to make changes while discussion was underway  , and rejected other POVs as "...completely perposterous and wrong". I requested that Ting stop making changes while discussion was in progress, and issued the block when he continued and made this edit.

The 2nd block was issued after the following: 1) Accusing John Smith of vandalism, while attributing a false argument to him that had already been explained to him previously; 2) Making changes on other articles while discussion was still pending ; 3) Twice deleting information representitive of the PRC position   on Legal status of Taiwan even after it was explained that the purpose of the article was to present claims, and not a judgement of which one was true. I issued the 2nd block after he made the second deletion.

In both cases, the blocks were reviewed and unblock requests denied by another uninvolved admin. For the record, I was mostly uninvolved until about May 3, when I presented evidence of possible sockpuppetry. I began to become more active in the arbitration process on May 6, when I proposed coming to a consensus on the naming conventions, though I did not become active in editing the articles in dispute until May 13. After the 2nd block, I refrained from issuing further blocks on TingMing after realizing that I was becoming more involved in the dispute. Whether this is a conflict of interest... well, that's up to ArbCom to decide.-Loren 07:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I would encourage ArbCom to take into consideration all edits made by TingMing starting from his registration on 13 April, and especially the blanket replacement edits made between 6 and 7 May. My decision to block was not made solely in a vacuum based upon edits only on Central Bank of the Republic of China (Taiwan), but upon a consistent pattern of behavior across multiple articles. While these did not strictly fall under WP:3RR, I believed these edits did violate the spirit of the 3RR and constituted disruption based on Disruptive editing, namely Tendentious editing. -Loren 07:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:


 * 1) I would neither agree nor oppose Loren's explanation due to possible conflict of interest. Nevertheless, along with my own Analysis of facts and what is there in the /Evidence page, TingMing is no less responsible for any disruption than Loren is (if that is the case). He was repeatedly warned of his attitude and behavior toward other editors and their own POVs (in this case facts can only be interpreted), but he still continues his disruptive editing while getting into conflict with multiple editors not previously involved. As Loren asserted, it was not his POV that made him blocked; it was his behavior, generally unacceptable by most of the community.  Vic  226說 13:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Behavioral Similarities with Nationalist sockpuppets
This is a followup to the section posted on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/TingMing/Evidence. As mentioned previously, has displayed editing patterns consistent to those of, another editor with strong views and a penchant for unilateral action, personal attacks, and repeated block evasion - later believed to be attempting to thwart CU through use of different IPs. In addition to the points raised on /Evidence, I'd also like to point out the following series of edits, and contrast them with those of past sockpuppets, as determined via Requests for checkuser/Case/Nationalist. These are only a small subset of the multiple articles that were affected. -Loren 07:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

1) Edit warring on (among other articles on locations in Taiwan) :
 * Edits by (Confirmed sockpuppeteer):
 * Edits by (Confirmed sock by CU):
 * Edits by (CU returned likely sock):
 * Edits by (CU returned no geographical relation based on IP address, however strong behavioral similarities, sock block examined and upheld by uninvolved admin) :
 * Edits by (Confirmed sock by CU):
 * Edits by (Confirmed sock by CU):
 * Edits by :

2) Repeated insertion of images of Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall onto, ignoring concerns from other editors:
 * Edit by (CU returned likely sock):
 * Edits by (Suspected, blocked on editing patterns):
 * Edits by :
 * Also note talk page comment by (Confirmed sock by CU):


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: