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—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.
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#Naming conventions 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)
2)
3)
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)
2)
3)
4)
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: [1] [2]) Vic 226 說 09:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
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: [3], [4], [5]. - Loren 00:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
5) {text of proposed principle}
6) {text of proposed principle}
7) {text of proposed principle}
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)
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)
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)
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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/TingMing#Statement by TingMing, regarding sockpuppet allegations claimed "the Check user has confirmed that I am Not" when actual result was possible (again: [6]). 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)
5) {text of proposed finding of fact}
6) {text of proposed finding of fact}
7) {text of proposed finding of fact}
8) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
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)
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)
3) {text of proposed remedy}
4) {text of proposed remedy}
5) {text of proposed remedy}
6) {text of proposed remedy}
7) {text of proposed remedy}
8) {text of proposed remedy}
9) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
3) {text of proposed enforcement}
4) {text of proposed enforcement}
5) {text of proposed enforcement}
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
In Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese), under the section Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#ROC/Taiwan Naming Conventions (Here we go again...), 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)#Proposed guidelines, 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 ( [11] [12] ). 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)
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 [13] [14] [15] [16], and rejected other POVs as "...completely perposterous and wrong". I requested that Ting stop making changes while discussion was in progress [17], 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 [18], 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 [19] [20]; 3) Twice deleting information representitive of the PRC position [21] [22] 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 [23], when I presented evidence of possible sockpuppetry [24]. I began to become more active in the arbitration process on May 6, when I proposed coming to a consensus on the naming conventions [25], though I did not become active in editing the articles in dispute until May 13 [26]. 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 Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Definition of disruptive editing and editors, namely Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. - Loren 07:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a followup to the section posted on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/TingMing/Evidence. As mentioned previously, TingMing ( talk · contribs) has displayed editing patterns consistent to those of Nationalist ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 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 Wikipedia: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) Guantian, Tainan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):
2) Repeated insertion of images of Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall onto Template:WikiProject Taiwan ( | [[Talk:Template:WikiProject Taiwan|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), ignoring concerns from other editors:
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—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.
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#Naming conventions 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)
2)
3)
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)
2)
3)
4)
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: [1] [2]) Vic 226 說 09:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
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: [3], [4], [5]. - Loren 00:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
5) {text of proposed principle}
6) {text of proposed principle}
7) {text of proposed principle}
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)
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)
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)
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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/TingMing#Statement by TingMing, regarding sockpuppet allegations claimed "the Check user has confirmed that I am Not" when actual result was possible (again: [6]). 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)
5) {text of proposed finding of fact}
6) {text of proposed finding of fact}
7) {text of proposed finding of fact}
8) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
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)
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)
3) {text of proposed remedy}
4) {text of proposed remedy}
5) {text of proposed remedy}
6) {text of proposed remedy}
7) {text of proposed remedy}
8) {text of proposed remedy}
9) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
3) {text of proposed enforcement}
4) {text of proposed enforcement}
5) {text of proposed enforcement}
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
In Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese), under the section Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#ROC/Taiwan Naming Conventions (Here we go again...), 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)#Proposed guidelines, 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 ( [11] [12] ). 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)
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 [13] [14] [15] [16], and rejected other POVs as "...completely perposterous and wrong". I requested that Ting stop making changes while discussion was in progress [17], 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 [18], 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 [19] [20]; 3) Twice deleting information representitive of the PRC position [21] [22] 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 [23], when I presented evidence of possible sockpuppetry [24]. I began to become more active in the arbitration process on May 6, when I proposed coming to a consensus on the naming conventions [25], though I did not become active in editing the articles in dispute until May 13 [26]. 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 Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Definition of disruptive editing and editors, namely Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. - Loren 07:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a followup to the section posted on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/TingMing/Evidence. As mentioned previously, TingMing ( talk · contribs) has displayed editing patterns consistent to those of Nationalist ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 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 Wikipedia: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) Guantian, Tainan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):
2) Repeated insertion of images of Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall onto Template:WikiProject Taiwan ( | [[Talk:Template:WikiProject Taiwan|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), ignoring concerns from other editors: