Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Xiong 2

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with }), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).


 * (User:Xiong | talk | contributions)

Remark on recreation
Okay. Since the previous RFC bogged down into an apparent conflict between Xiong and Netoholic, I've moved it to Requests for comment/Xiong/Old and would like to start anew. I would request that Netoholic please refrain from contributing to this RFC.

The question is, are there people who have objections to Xiong's behavior? If there are, they should objectively state so here. Radiant_* 08:21, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: now back at Requests for comment/Xiong. --cesarb 01:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It's frustrating that this RfC has been started from scratch because a large number of the previous complaints about Xiong's conduct were valid, irrespective of his conflict with Netoholic. (It must also be rather stressful to Xiong to start over.) I would like to suggest that if we are to start afresh, then we should seriously consider putting an embargo on this RfC until after the Request for arbitration against Netoholic is finished, to absolutely ensure that there's no further confusion or upset. -- FP ?? 09:23, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd have to disagree. Xiong's behavior has nothing to do with Netoholic. IF people object to Xiong's behavior, they should state so here. If nobody does, this RFC should be closed. Radiant_* 09:25, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Alright. If we continue, then, all parties involved should remind themselves that this RfC is about Xiong and his actions, and any comments about Netoholic (except where they specifically relate to Xiong's conduct) are beside the point and not germane to this discussion. (I just don't want to see this RfC restarted again...) -- FP ?? 09:38, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: although I have taken the initative to restart this RfC, at Radiant!'s prompting, I still have significant reservations about why this is necessary at all. IMO the old RfC was sound. -- FP ?? 12:00, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think this restarting was necessary at all. Should have gotten a consensus before blanking the page, instead of asking everyone afterwards if it was a good idea. - Omegatron 16:45, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Description
Some time in early/mid March, Xiong became involved in a number of disputes over various issues. While Xiong may have had a legitimate position in these disputes, his subsequent responses to the conflicts were inappropriate and resulted in the disputes overflowing into other areas of Wikipedia. Xiong's actions created significant wikistress for editors who had nothing to do with the original conflict, and disrupted the smooth operation of Wikipedia.

Furthermore, while we should all show respect for reasonable viewpoints, Xiong has been challenging, accusatory, and insulting to the point where productive dialogue has not been possible. He has also taken a number of deliberate disruptive actions which show disregard for established Wikipedia community standards, policies and procedures. The aggressive tone of his conduct seems to have been escalating recently.

Xiong is clearly an intelligent person, with great potential to be a highly productive wikipedian. It is my hope that Xiong will take this renewed RfC as genuinely constructive feedback, adopt a more balanced and less hostile attitude, and make the necessary changes to foster a better editing environment for the whole community.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(provide diffs and links)
 * Removal of tfd tags
 * On 07:40, 2005 Mar 31, Netoholic nominates Template:Divbox, marking it with the TFD tag as per the procedure on WP:TFD
 * Through a series of reversions, Xiong removed the tag, moving it to the talk page. In his edit summaries, he describes insertion of the tag as "vandalism".
 * This scenario is played out on a number of other templates since that time -- Template:Talkfix Template:Archist


 * Xiong nominates Template:tfd itself for deletion (see Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted) on 17:07, 2005 Apr 5
 * On this occasion, Xiong adds the text of the TFD notice to the TFD template itself, effectively doubling the visible text. This is seen by many as overly disruptive, and it was removed. Xiong edit warred in order to replace the tag, as he put it - "tagged per inflexible procedure" and "sorry, but policy is policy -- all nominated templates must be tagged -- see TfD policy"


 * Xiong nominates Templates for deletion for deletion (see Votes for deletion/Templates for deletion) on 04:06, 2005 Apr 19


 * How to make complex illustrations using FreeHand and Photoshop - Unwillingness to entertain reasonable suggestions to move this to Wikibooks, both so that it can be expanded and to reduce the overall page size.
 * Wikipedia talk:How to make complex illustrations using FreeHand and Photoshop/move
 * User talk:Kevin Rector


 * Refactoring of Talk pages
 * Xiong has recently been expressing that he believes project talk pages should be "archived to history", rather than creating a separate archive page, as is the widely-practiced procedure.  In furtherance of this, he attempted to archive project talk pages "to history", largely blanking those pages even though a number of discussions were still very recent.  Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates ([ history]), Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion ([ history]), Template talk:Divbox ([ history]) (diff)


 * Revert warring
 * In furtherance of his position on archiving talk pages, Xiong violates the WP:3RR by reverting Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates - 1, 2, 3, 4 times
 * In furtherance of his opinion on the tfd tag, he revert wars on several templates (Divbox, Talkfix, Archist, and even tfd itself)


 * Personal attacks, incivility, failure to assume good faith in the actions of others
 * 15:06, 2005 Apr 4 - "Netoholic (is) ... far more dangerous than any common vandal."
 * 05:43, 2005 Apr 10 - "Netoholic ... continues to rampage unchecked. His actions are evil, a menace to the project"
 * 17:43, Apr 10, 2005. Xiong responds in a negative and accusatory manner when FirstPrinciples encourages him to calm down.
 * 00:13, 2005 Apr 19 - "How can so many smart people be so dumb?" with the edit summary "tool for fools"
 * 21:23, Apr 9, 2005 - "Show me a few heads on pikes, and I will begin to believe you. I need to see some adults around here, unafraid to take abrupt action to protect the fabric of the community against predators and carpetbaggers. ... [Netaholic's] payoff comes in the form of manhours pissed away dealing with his bullshit." - In response to a comment that he should "relax".
 * 19:40, 19 Apr 2005 Ad hominem attacks on those trying to resolve a dispute with him.
 * 04:27, 24 Apr 2005 To cesarb: "Do the research before you vote. If you don't want to be tagged a deletionist fanatic, think before you act.".
 * 18:20, Apr 25, 2005, 05:51, Apr 27, 2005 Aggressive, sarcastic comments at Netoholic's talk page.
 * 20:55, Apr 27, 2005 Belittling comments about Radiant!, who restarted this RfC in an attempt to help Xiong.


 * "Conspiracy" theories
 * On 10:54, 2005 Apr 7, Xiong posts an extremely long section on Wikipedia talk:Village pump (policy) (Talk page) regarding his issues around the management of WP:TFD.
 * On April 10, Xiong made an obtrusive accusatory pronouncement on a number of project and user talk pages (,, , , , and creating a page titled Down the memory hole which was later moved to User:Xiong/Down the memory hole) that his April 7th post had gone "Down the memory hole". Apparently, it was a rather simple error on his part, wherein he meant to post it on Village pump (policy), but instead posted it on the talk page.  Xiong describes what he feels is "pure Orwellian censorship", where his post was "obliterated" by some malicious actor.  See User:Xiong/Minitrue.
 * After a number of users point out the mistake, he replies that he is "not convinced", that it was not an attempt to make him "look foolish by altering history as to eliminate all reference to the complaint", implying that someone invisibly moved his post from the proposals page to the talk page just to make him look foolish. (Village pump (policy))
 * Note: Xiong struck out his comments, calling his own theory a "paranoid charge". Appears to show that he was indeed convinced, though maybe not immediately.(diff)


 * Re-creation of deleted pages/failure to accept consensus during the deletion process
 * Template:Pfd was recreated by Xiong on 19:08, 2005 Apr 23


 * Inappropriate and disruptive use of templates
 * 21:51, Apr 27, 2005 Addition of the TfD template to his talk page, with a warning not to remove it.

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point - Essentially, it can be seen as disruptive to take an action which one has vocally spoke out against.
 * How to archive a talk page
 * Assume good faith, Civility
 * Consensus
 * Edit war, Three-revert rule
 * Writers rules of engagement (filibustering)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * Regarding removal of tfd tags -
 * Regarding the appropriateness of moving the illustration guide to Wikibooks - ,
 * Regarding assumption of bad faith and maintaining civility -
 * Regarding community practices related to refactoring long Talk pages -
 * Comments in reply to his posts on Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion
 * Regarding WP:POINT and filibustering: (sections 20. {tfd} tag f**ks up display of tagged template, 21. Let it be, and 21.1. TfD and Xiong)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * FP ?? 10:34, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC). Xiong is clearly an intelligent person, but he needs to learn to calm down, follow community guidelines and and deal with conflict in a constructive manner. (Xiong, despite what you might think, there is nothing personal in this. I have no association with Netoholic or any "cabal", and practically no involvement in the areas of Wikipedia where your disputes lie. I'm simply concerned at your ongoing disruptive behaviour, and the levels of wikistress generated.)
 * Omegatron 23:07, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC) - I have issues with Netaholic's behavior as well, but it will be dealt with independently. Xiong's characterization of anyone who disagrees with him as a pawn of Netaholic or part of a conspiratorial cabal is ridiculous. His contributions to the encyclopedia itself are minimal compared to his contributions to our combined wikistress levels. He has a grand idea of what Wikipedia should be, but refuses to take part in the normal discussion/consensus process we use to effect such changes (despite having a few genuinely good ideas). Regardless of whether Netaholic is "an evil influence", Xiong's behavior needs reform.
 * Korath (Talk) 03:23, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC) - As before.

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * Mhmm. ugen 64 14:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * While I do not agree that Xiong has "disrupted the smooth operation of Wikipedia," I believe that there is more than a kernel of truth in the other concerns raised here. While I have no personal quarrel with Xiong, I can appreciate the frustration he has caused others. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Xiong needs to appreciate that other users have valid concerns/complaints about his behaviour. Thryduulf 17:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As above. --Carnildo 20:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Since this version will probably stand, I'll add the same comment as I made in the old one: I've checked out his contributions, and while he has made some good contributions, he has also caused a lot of unnecessary conflict and disruption. Nominating Templates for deletion is a serious case of WP:POINT and it definitely got my attention. --Deathphoenix 20:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As Deathphoenix said. The bickering with Netoholic was ill-advised, but there was a lack of wikicivility from both parties.  When it spilled over into attempting unilateral policy changes on TfD and VfDing the TfD page, Xiong dragged a lot of other users into the fray.  (Incidentally, it's not helpful to accuse us of being Netoholic's "spare wheels".) --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 23:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with Deathphoenix. --Wgfinley 19:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * There was no need to restart this RfC. --cesarb 20:04, 28 Apr 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.