Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chan Han Xiang

(Chan Han Xiang | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
This users ignores the WP community.

Description
Chan Han Xian, repetedely create articles after they have been vfd'ed delete. He ignores suggestions on fvd notice and subsequently restore articles. User Chan abused the VIP process, vandalised vfd notice, used extremely rude language on many user pages.

But... the real problem is he is not learning. We are not talking about any user here. Chan Han Xiang self nominated twice (already) for adminiship. So he should be especially aware of all thoses things. After one month communication with him (hours of writting by me), many other users communication regarding VIP, VFD, edits, style, format, GFDL usage, picture removale, "Shoe preview" feature, comments of adminship page etc... one of his recent action is... recreate an article which was vfd'ed !

I am baffled.

My feeling is, we have some nice contribs from this users. On the other hand he proved to miss-uderstand repetedly what is wikipedia, wikiquette, wiki-processes, the community. And he proved not to learn. Are those "not so bad contribs" just the result of random ? I am afraid of it. So, should there be a ban there ? Could some one comment ? Thank you for time and attention.

Gtabary 15:25, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * Re-created page against vfd - Votes for deletion/City Square and Votes for deletion/Johor Bahru City Square
 * Re-created page against vfd - Votes for deletion/Medical Specialist Centre
 * Reverted content against vfd + ignore talk page diff Taman Johor Jaya Talk:Taman_Johor_Jaya
 * See my talk page the number of time I suggested him to sign his comments. Even after a month this did not happen.

Previously :
 * On User talk:Gtabary page : I tell you, dog, do a proper article
 * From other user page : ''
 * here reverted/removed repeatedly article edits from different users.
 * here removed and defaced several times the vfd notice on article. Many users warned him.
 * here "Censored" (his own words) comments on vfd page, removed some, modified some more, modified original notice.
 * here Edited repeatedly his talk page removing warnings.
 * here Created many spurious vfd notice. (like this) got warned (not by me) many times, got re-listed on the vandalism in progress page. (not by me).
 * here Created spurious VIP entry and got immediately notified.

Applicable policies

 * Vandalisme
 * Rudeness

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

 * My User talk:gtabary contains it all.
 * User talk:Chan Han Xiang talk page (and history) with my many comments.
 * His talk page with jpgordon notes regarding VIP
 * His talk page with Humblefool note about vfd.


 * I do sympathize with the request below for diffs rather than just links for evaluating this, but Gtabary is on Wikation. As a quick fix, I ask people to please just read Gtabary's greeting on Chan Han Xiang's talk page and then Gtabary's talk page from here to where it ends. I actually think that's simpler than clicking on a lot of diffs. There's no digging involved, it's all relevant, and gives a good picture of what this is about, even if it leaves out some angles and input from other users.--Bishonen | Talk 13:05, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:16, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * hfool/Wazzup? 00:35, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * --Bishonen | Talk 09:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * dab (ᛏ) 12:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * --Giano 22:06, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Geogre 14:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * --fvw *  23:30, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 06:18, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * --JuntungWu 01:57, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Response
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Can we get diffs instead of just links to the history pages, please? I can't be bothered to dig for RfCable edits myself. dab (ᛏ) 12:36, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * ok, so here is one diff.
 * . If you dog will not restore your mess, I will hunt you to world's end and will not let you rest until you do that. You should know who am I. If you do not finish in three days, I will take serious action against you.
 * this should be more than enough to block his ass, and is certainly enough for me to endorse this RfC. dab (ᛏ) 12:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * In the latest development, Chan Han Xiang engaged in some bizarre behaviour on New Years Eve, renaming his various user pages into the main article space with names like Fccccccccc; I wasn't sure whether this was him or someone hijacking account, since he hadn't done anything actually vandalistic or destructive before, so I blocked him (inadvertantly blocking other users of his floating IP addresses, but that's another story) and one of the other admins undid the damage. I then received mail from him saying, Hey, for what you are blocking me? I have the right to do what I like to do to MY user page. Either you unblock me or you will have a tatste of your medicine. My intention to do that is not vandalism, but to delete my page away. Josh, I plead you to delete my User Page and so on. And after that, this might be your last message. I will leave wikipedia, maybe forever. I give you the full authority to eliminate my User page and everything. I plead you. Anyway, he's unblocked now; we'll see what happens, but I suspect either more weirdness or total absence. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:34, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * And as of Jan 5th, 2005, he's gone. No edits since the last one to his talk page.  Is the matter now closed? hfool/Wazzup? 02:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi. Not much to add. Recent things just confirmed the rest. Following this RFC Chan created one for me as "retaliation". His request for vote for undeletion confirms he does not understand what a standard vfd process is. Don't get me wrong. It's a pain to see a wikipedian leave. It's a loss. But when contributions generate more problems than value should not this be stoped ?


 * One of the issue there was about that: it is not enough to have true, verifiable facts to make an article. In other words, I could decribe my house in great details whith all verifiable data: it just would be a very bad WP article. Note, I tried to explain that : unsuccessfully.


 * My position remains the same: I have lost hope to see Chan progress. For information: I'll remain pretty quite on talk pages for I have been pretty verbose for a long time, pretty hot, also because it has been suggested to me to chill down. There is not much I can add.

Gtabary 11:24, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised your explanations were unsuccessful. Frankly I doubt if he was listening after you started getting his work deleted and unilaterally renaming his pages. Personally I hope we continue to see detailed articles appearing on Malaysian institutions and Korean television programs. Kappa 13:47, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps he might have reasonably felt pissy toward Gtabary. Perhaps not. But Gtabary wasn't his only target, not by any means; nor is Gtabary the only editor who finds Chan unable to comprehend any explanations or demonstrations of the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. Gtabary was actually a latecomer to the effort. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kappa. My guess is that this Chan Han Xiang is probably no more than 16, and I take his attitude as teenage angst. Can't we speak to him in a friendlier tone than take such drastic measures? He seems to respond much better to coaxes. Having such tribunals against a fairly young contributor isn't the way out, I'm afraid. Mandel 17:12, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * (Clearing some indent) I don't quite understand what point Kappa's comment makes. Does "getting [Chan's] work deleted" refer to Gtabary listing Chan's articles for VfD? VfD is part of the normal workings of Wikipedia, n.b. as long as listings aren't frivolous (Chan's own retaliatory VfD listings come to mind). Whether or not you approve of them, I don't think anybody could call Gtabary's listings frivolous, and the community did in fact vote to delete. G used a standard Wikipedia procedure in a proper way and fell through into a fourth dimension of abuse, personal attacks, legal threats, and name-calling. I'm not clear whether your comment is meant to imply that he only got what he deserved, and/or these reactions of Chan's were justified. Maybe you could clarify? Mandel, having read the talk pages of Chan and Gtabary, it looks to me like Gtabary tried plenty of coaxing first, and only opened the RfC in a kind of despair. I won't offer any guesses about his age, but "All jump on Gtabary" isn't a nice game either.--Bishonen | Talk 17:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I also believe Chan is likely to be pretty young. I thought for a while his actions were deliberate provocation. But too many of theme are just so enormous that I abandoned this idea. I then wrote this very long and gentle comment. With no effect. Ignorance is no big deal. Absence of will or absence of capability to learn is an enormous deal within a community which has rules.
 * Kappa, the point is I attempted communication _before_ vfding. An other story is I indeed wrongly renamed many articles. I was wrong. The action was unilateral and bad. True. I stoped. The motivation though is shared by some users: common names should not be hijacked. But I don't discuss that, for apparently it is the custom not to disambig by default on common names. End of story: I go with community.
 * Now the real point is that I doubt if he was listening after you started getting his work deleted. Well, here there is once again an understanding problem: if you get pissed at someone for a vfd, well the wiki concept is maybe not for you. If you don't get the point that something could be enhenced in an article after 10 peoples mentionned so, well there is not much I can do.
 * There is a will to have highly detailed article. Fair enough. It is your fredoom. Now, one is not free to respect the consensus. If the consensus is there are too many details on an article, this is the end of the story. One can not ride alone. This (good) will to have too higly detailed things reveal a bit of vanity: not able to distinguish personal passion and general interest. Which fits into the (IMO) immature picture of the character.
 * The ultimate element I consider is: Chan saying I am leaving. He just does not understand that no one ask him to do so. He is asked to evolve toward a community spirit. There is no kill/win/lose here. There is talk. Well... there should be.
 * Mandel, agreed: let's be gentle. Please let me know for how long ? Let's not be naive here. That's months WP community is gentle with Chan. As Jpgordon mentionned above: I don't come from the sky as batman here. Many users have expressed, the least we can say, questions on Chan. :-)
 * Gtabary 18:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I don't defend Chan's abusive language, and yes Gtabary has showed admirable tolerance of it. Also if Gtabary attempted coaxing before VfD I applaud that. However, the "gentle" approach ceased with the VfD. After that the relationship should have been civil, but it was never going to be friendly. Replying to Gtabary's other two points, although no one directly asked him to leave, suggesting a ban seems like a pretty strong hint. Also Chan certainly appears to be try to respect the community on the detail issue (from Votes for deletion/Medical Specialist Centre): "Gtabary, I did not say that I will add the same old rubbish information again. I only added the stub, and promised to add more info. Other hospitals are just the same with that. Oh god, what's wrong with that? Hospitals are always not so notable, but in the margin between notable and non-notable." Kappa 23:48, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I think there's some extent of misunderstanding as well. English is obviously not his native language, and he takes offense at Gtabary using terms like "noise" etc.  I don't think he's particularly incensed at anyone else although his attitude can be more civil, it's clear he feels his protecting himself rather than seeking out a provocation.  He already thinks that Gtabary is deliberately deleting and minimizing his input here and he isn't happy with that.  We have to tell him that it's a community decision, and he has to respect that.  Some of his retaliation admittedly is childish peevishness, but what do we expect from a kid?  For one thing he isn't a vandal, but we must keep reminding him that being civil and polite in disagreement is essential in Wikipedia. Mandel 12:15, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)