Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/TingMing/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

 * Blnguyen
 * Charles Matthews
 * FloNight
 * Fred Bauder
 * Jdforrester
 * Jpgordon
 * Kirill Lokshin
 * Matthew Brown (Morven)
 * SimonP
 * UninvitedCompany

Inactive/away:
 * Flcelloguy
 * Mackensen
 * Neutrality
 * Paul August
 * Raul654

Explanation of blocks
I have responded to some of the allegations concerning administrative actions I took, which some arbitrators have deemed inappropriate on Requests for arbitration/TingMing/Workshop. If you have any further questions you'd like me to answer, please let me know. -Loren 02:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/TingMing/Workshop too. There are also ample instances posted in the /Evidence page. Vic 226說 06:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Increasingly disruptive and aggressive attitude from TingMing
In my mind, removing barnstars from a user's page is one of the worse lines an editor can possibly cross. This should be taken into account when considering the result of the arbitration, in my view. John Smith&#39;s 22:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ting is also becoming more aggressive in engaging in edit wars with other editors. For example, he has decided to unilaterally change the naming conventions for various names, despite a very long previous discussion and consensus in which he declined to participate. He then goes on to cite the naming conventions (that he changed unilaterally without discussion) as his reason for changing other pages, like Chen Shui-bian. He's clearly operating outside the intended guidelines of consensus and good faith, and something needs to be done about him soon. Attempts to reason with him and to encourage him to follow the wikipedia standards here, here, here, and here, have fallen on deaf ears. I appreciate the ArbCom taking a look at this case, but Ting's aggressiveness, edit-warring, hostility toward other editors, and blatant POV pushing are really a huge nuisance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Folic Acid (talk • contribs)


 * Whoops! --Folic Acid 17:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a previous consensus for official titles such as President of the Republic of China. Yet folic acid continues to disregard this and engaged in edit wars with other people such as myself, Jiang, and Blueshirts. This is completely irresponsible on Folic's part. He should not just randomly stir up strife like this. Please assume good faith. Thanks TingMing 00:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to discuss the naming conventions with the ArbCom if it so desires. Suffice it to say that I believe Ting's gotten his understanding of the consensus a little backward.  Respectfully, --Folic Acid 00:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ting, where was this clear consensus? Please identify whatever page this discussion took place on and identify whatever vote/RfC/etc shows this consensus. Remember, a majority isn't automatically consensus. Equally if people have subsequently challenged this consensus, any such previous "general view" is not binding.
 * Equally given your recent behaviour I'm not sure you are in a position to lecture anyone over edit-warring. John Smith&#39;s 18:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * He continues to make questionable edits despite editor consensus. He is also moving pages without discussing it with others (moving New Party (Taiwan) to New Party (Republic of China) please refer to this link for the reason why it was changed to New Party (Taiwan) here -->  it was a 17 to 16 vote to oppose moving it to New Party (Republic of China), and is continuing to make false accusations to me that I am a sock of someone else which in fact I am not.  His behavior is uncalled for and I think he should be banned. Momusufan 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually Momusufan showed you guys a very old poll. It was previously agreed on the talk page to have it renamed to New Party (Republic of China). It was already like that for a LONG LONG time until this year April Jerry came along and moved it to New Party (Taiwan) without any discussion or conensus. I am just reverting it to its rightful name. Momusufan has reverted all my edits on the basis that he has unjustified feud against me. This was the most random thing. He is a bully who keeps hurting me. I cannot stand for that. Momusufan, you should behave more civily. I think you should be banned for those rude and despicable comments that you left on my talk page and elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please assume good faith. TingMing 00:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you out of your mind? I am not in a feud with you, if I find vandalism, I revert it.  I am NOT a bully, I am helping the community by removing vandalism when I see it, and I do behave civily, you don't have evidence to show that.  You got to be drunk to say that to me.  And also, my comments are NOT rude, when you vandalize a page, you get warned like everyone else.  That is NOT rude at all.  from this day forward, I am staying out of this.  Tingming, do not contact me, do not talk to me, and don't ever accuse me of anything like that ever again, I will let the others take care of you.  Goodbye Momusufan 02:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If you think my edits are vandalism, you are mistaken. You simply cannot say all my edits are vandalism. That is completely unfair. You do not understand the situation or Taiwan-ROC topics. Please do not vandalize Wikipedia. You are doing the community a misfavor. And I am not drunk or stupid as you claim. Please stop insulting me. Your comments are increasingly ignorant and despicable. Please assume good faith. Dialogue, not war. TingMing 03:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * oh I am not mistaken, you know what you are doing wrong and it's not tolerable. I do not vandalize articles, I get rid of them. I am NOT insulting you and I am not ingorant either.  You are the one doing things wrong and it needs to stop.  Stop with these stupid accusations, stop the name calling and just get a life. Momusufan 03:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection of Central Bank of the Republic of China (Taiwan)
I suggest that either and  are both fully protected or that all partys involved are not allowed to edit them. -- (Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk) 01:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't edited either in a long time. I think a protection would be counter productive to the expanding knowledge of Wikipedia if people can't edit it. TingMing 03:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If it can prevent edit warring, then it is still a good idea. If you want to expand the article, you can put it on the talkpage or something.--Jerry 20:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed usage of Sockpuppets for block evasion by TingMing
has been confirmed by CheckUser to be a sockpuppet of, used to evade his most recent 4 day block issued by Tariqabjotu. This is the latest evidence of a pattern of blatant disregard for Wikipedia policies by the user in question, which I hope ArbCom will take into account. -Loren 20:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Noted. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Out of interest, the revert-warring on the article that lead to TingMing's latest block, there was a link given to a previous discussion from about 2005 which seems to show an even split. Is there are more up to date discussion somewhere? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the link, which seems to be an even split.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be a bugger, but the top of the vote page stated, and I quote: "a >50% majority is needed for a move to be passed". The example you had shown had more than 50% opposing. I get where you're going with this and it was definately a close call, but the "oppose" side had gained the majority; even if it was razor thin. Nat Tang talk to me! 03:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's ok, I found a more recent thing, where it was more clearcut. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

New block on TingMing
I have just blocked User:TingMing for continued edit-warring, disruption, and vandalism (repeatedly inserting an offensive image at Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall here, here, and here, for instance). I gave him 2 weeks as he has a pattern of repeat offenses, apparent incorrigibility, and used a sockpuppet to evade his last block, which just expired. At the time I did this, though, I was unaware an ArbCom case was ongoing. I just wanted to notify the participants; please let me know if you think my actions were inappropriate or need revision. MastCell Talk 00:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, he went berserk apparently: Return of the Sith ( talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log] ). -Loren 01:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've put in a request for checkuser on, just to be sure it's him, but I'd be willing to bet money that it is. --Folic Acid 02:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Several of the arbitrators have checkuser access and can run the check themselves if they wish, so a formal RfCU is not necessary. I recommend that this case finish voting and be closed soon. Newyorkbrad 02:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would heartily endorse that recommendation. And thanks for doing a great job, Brad - I'm impressed that you manage to keep a level head with all the ruckus going on around you.  Cheers to you! --Folic Acid 03:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Checkuser comes out or less -- Return of the Sith came in through an open proxy. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not the first time something like that has happened. The circumstantial evidence in itself is pretty much sufficient to establish relation. -Loren 03:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow... that's a huge mess TingMing has created there. Vic 226說 05:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

ummm....I think I just found TingMing online again...this time as ...I sure that's him. (That picture with that old man and the changes to the Taiwan/ROC articles gave him away). Nat Tang talk to me! 05:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Indef. banned.  Vic  226說 06:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Now he's done it. Funny that I could still remember him pleading that he will "discuss peacefully" and such when he was blocked. Vic 226說 06:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ting's definition of "discuss peacefully" seems to mean "Everyone else bend over to The Truth (TM)". Zealots and Wikipedia don't mix very well. Given his normal actions towards other editors while "discussing peacefully", I don't think anyone is particularly surprised at his reaction when he realized that he wasn't going to find support here for turning Wikipedia into an ideological battleground. This shares many similarities with the User:GrandCru incident a few years back... someone with strong beliefs who got upset, and basically went berserk. Despite the fact that they are ideological opposites, TingMing and GrandCru are behaving in pretty much the same way after a large number of editors found their behavior unacceptable. -Loren 15:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I find this further sockpuppetry and disruptiveness compelling enough to extend User:TingMing's block to indefinite, which I've done. MastCell Talk 16:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)