Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Huaiwei

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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 with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. 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: 08:32, 22 December 2005 ), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 06:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

(Note because User:Novacatz wrote this in first person, it makes it hard for me to add. I'll sign each and every statement that I personally add, and I'll put it in green. I endorse Novacatz's summary; my contributions to this page lie mainly in evidence and their explanation. enochlau (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

This RfC concerns the conduct of Huaiwei in the editing and discussion that emerged from what was originally Kung hei fat choi (presently at Chinese New Years greetings). The article was about a Chinese phrase. The discussion centered on what the appropriate title for the article should be; should it be based on Cantonese (Kung hei fat choi (KHFC)) or the Mandarin (Gong Xi Fa Chi (GXFC))? Although the page move per se is not the subject of the RfC, it is important to note as the context of this RfC.

This RfC was orginally misplaced as a section on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. The content of that page has been archived at /Archive1 for reference and removed from the noticeboard.

It should be noted that User:Huaiwei, User:Instantnood, and User:SchmuckyTheCat are under probation on China-related articles, as decided in this arbitration case here.

[edit] Description

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

The users primarily driving the discussion and editing the page are Enochlau, Huaiwei, Instantnood, SchmuckyTheCat and myself.

Background

The page in question was originally created approximately six months ago. Apart from some sparse edits (including one by Huawei), there was not much activity on the page. On December 11 2005, Yaohua2000 put a requested move notice on the article page. This is what drew my attention to this page. I moved the RM notice to the talk page where it belongs and facilitated the discussion. This RM discussion brought a flurry of activity to the page and brought it to the attention of Huaiwei.

Requested Move

The archived requestion move discussion can be found here. During my facilitation of the RM discussion, I was performing background research on the article content. I noted that Huaiwei would frequently follow up opposing votes with adversarial discussion.

During this time, I made an edit to the article that Huaiwei disagreed with. He reversion was swift and his edit summary a bit harsh. [1]. At this discussion stage, I was surprised that Huaiwei had such strong feelings about this article.

The RM discussion yielded some useful information and some useful ideas.

It was here that the first example of Huaiwei's odd behaviour occured. Despite arguing on the RM discussion about the correctness of GXFC, he actually removed the reference from the article itself[2]. This was initally viewed with some humour [3] and good faith [4][5]. However, this is not the only instance of Huaiwei's practice of switching position to maintain an argument. .


At the end of the RM discussion period, there is a clear consenus to NOT move the page (14 oppose, 5 support, 4 Neutral). A couple of users advanced the idea of having a general page dedicated to Chinese New Year Greetings in general with both the Manadrin and Cantonese versions represented. However, this idea was not pursued with any followup discussion.

During the RM period - STC, without warning/notice on the talk page decided to be bold and move the page unilaterally. This move was a bit reckless with several active users (Instantnood and Enoch) disagreeing strongly. Instantnood felt strongly enough about the move to revert the move back.

Further Discussion

During the RM discussion, Yao thought it appropriate to put the (( disputed )) tag on the page. I thought this move was not appropriate since the factual content of the article was not in dispute, only the correct title/placement. I did not revert during the RM discussion period in the hope that additional information/sources would provide information that could lay to rest whatever objection Yao had to the page.

After a period of relative peace - I felt that there was no new evidence to demonstrate any factual errors and removed the (( disputed )) tag and invited Yao to make clear his objections to the article. Yao did reply with his objections. However, his objections were slightly misplaced and it appeared that he had not been reading any of the intervening discussion. The only objection that Yao had after some discussion was a POV issue with the article. Note that Yao, aside from some minor edits, has never attempted to correct the article of any bias.

When Huaiwei asked to provide justification for the (( disputed )) tag so that I might correct them. He throws up allegations of bias again. Instead of editing the article to correct any POV issues he might have, he instead perfers to add long diatribes on the talk page.

At this stage, the talk page becomes polluted with a three way conversation between Enoch, Huaiwei and myself. Huaiwei seems to have more interest in throwing up straw man arugments than correcting the page. At some stage, Huaiwei begins to launch into personal attacks to the other editors. He also begins accusing other editors of 'filibusting' dispute being the most active poster on the page. I try to rein in the argument as much as possible, but it does not seem Huaiwei is amendable to reason.

On 21 Dec, STC somehow construed in Huaiwei's words a consenus had emerged to move the article. He merged the article into Chinese New Year, in the process destroying some content. This merge has never been suggested before. It is unclear why STC did this. STC also chose to modify KHFC a little immediately after the move, making that page could not be moved back without intervention of an admin.

This move, in the amidst of the active discussion was certainly unwelcome. Instantnood immediately revert the move back and there was a brief tug-of-war between Instantnood, Huaiwei and STC. I reverted the page back to the last version before the move and asked all participants to sort out the move.

Huawei, then claims a consenus had been reached and quotes the suggestions from the RM to that effect. There was no consenus for any such move and there was certainly no mention of a merge with CNY. The ensuing discussion becomes quite heated and vocal. Huawei repeats his odd practice of changing his position (after only 1.5 hours???) to maintain an argument.

Despite Huawei's baiting, I distance myself from the discussion somewhat. However, Huawei's provocations are too much for Enoch. I need to remind Huiawei to stay cool and avoid personal attacks. Huaiwei starts to bite me [6].

Enoch and I are both throughly unhappy at this stage and begin the procedure for RfC and other admin intervention + outside assistance.

We would like comments on the following:

  • Has Huaiwei gone beyond the bounds of acceptable behaviour? Should he be recommended for Wikipedia:Mentorship?
  • Has Huaiwei breached the terms of his probation? enochlau (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. Adversarial discussion during RM discussion/vote - [7][8][9][10][11]
  2. Unproductive Soapboxing Diatribes - [12][13]
  3. Huaiwei starts throwing around accusations - [14]
  4. Personal Attack - [15]
  5. Huaiwei's POV - [16]
  6. Huaiwei changing his position just to argue - [17][18]
  7. Accuses others of personal attacks - [19]
  8. Bad faith in discussion. Claims consenus where none exists - accuses of others of filbusting when he is the main talker on the page - [20]
  9. Name calling (on Instantnood, Myself) - [21]

(If other users don't mind, I wish to quote (whole sentences so as to not distort the meaning) from the talk pages instead; it's easier to present and read. If that is not acceptable, I will provide diffs. enochlau (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)):

  1. Arrogance, intimidatory edit comments, "pugnacity and personal attacks" (quoting User:Bishonen): read short discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Enochlau. enochlau (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Not done in good faith. enochlau (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. (Talk:Kung_hei_fat_choi/Move_Discussion) "That was pretty useful information, thank you very much. I am surprised how some seem to trivalise this voting system with comments like that.--Huaiwei 19:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)" Words that are designed to intimidate and harass users who don't agree with his point of view. enochlau (talk) 13:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. (Talk:Hong_Kong-style_western_cuisine) "I consider calling others "banana" is a quite humiliating insult; that's obviously racial discrimination. Mind your words please. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 14:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC) He has a history of abuse against other users; this is quoted from a previous discussion. "I am still awaiting your delightfully knowledgeable replies.--Huaiwei 15:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC) His sarcastic tone suggests that he does not understand that on Wikipedia, users must come to a consensus and that his view may not necessarily prevail. enochlau (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. (Talk:Kung_hei_fat_choi/Move_Discussion) No one is talking about Dim Sum, so you might wish to avoid bringing in poor comparisons in a fit of provincial rage... --Huaiwei 13:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC) + Bad English, or provincial-pride running sky-high?--Huaiwei 15:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC) His continual insistence that the comments that did not support his views were made purely because we possessed some kind of provincial (Hong Kong) pride are insulting to the intelligences of the editors involved in the move discussion. enochlau (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    1. WP:POINT - (contentious - this is not an assertion, but a suggestion for others to consider) causing argument for the sake of causing argument, see also Talk:Hong_Kong-style_western_cuisine#Cuisine.3F. enochlau (talk) 14:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. (Talk:Chinese New Years greetings) All quotes I made attribute to support in having a general greeting article, as opposed to your demands for KHFC to stay. The suggestion for a general article was put forth when it is clear there is a dispute in the Cantonese vs Mandarin debate.... Next, STC decided to merge this article to Chinese New Year. Previous discussions did not pre-empt this move, but when it was done, I felt it was reasonable to do so... --Huaiwei 06:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC) Novacatz and Enochlau claim that it is wrong to read into the move discussion that there was a consensus to move to "Chinese New Years greetings"; this claim is based on examining tallying the different proposals put forward by voters. Huaiwei appears to put his own desires above that of the result of community consultation. enochlau (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Probation violation: Huaiwei's rewriting of article as redirect and attitude on said talk page that prevents effective collaboration by users are claimed to be violations of his probation. enochlau (talk) 14:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Good Faith
  2. No personal attacks
  3. Don't be a dick
  4. Wikipedia:Consensus

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Numerous attempts have been tried on the talk page.

We submit that the comments that Novacatz and Enochlau made in the sections "Dictionary entry" and "move" on Talk:Chinese_New_Years_greetings were all designed to encourage dispute resolution. A few samples are quoted below. enochlau (talk) 13:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Not really. I think that's one thing we agree on. Shall we move it back, and discuss it further first? enochlau (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Huaiwei, I believe you are misrepresenting this discussion. There has been no discussion/agreement that the best move is to abandon both phrases (as demonstrated by the push and pull as soon as the move was made). I do not understand how we can have a discussion to move the article to GXFC (which failed to reach consensus) and you draw the conclusion there is agreement to move the page somewhere else. Can we try to reach agreement among all editors before making any more moves which will just get pushed back? novacatz 03:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • [22] I have tried to clarify with him always.
  • [23] I have sought the help of a neutral party.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. novacatz 08:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC) - well I did write the thing.
  2. enochlau (talk) 10:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC) - I have been a participant in the dispute since the beginning together with User:Novacatz.

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

[edit] 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. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{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 ~~~~):

[edit] 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. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

One must disagree with the extremity of this action being taken. One should remind the filers that WP:DICK is not an official policy, and neither is citing "long soapboxing diatribes" a legitimate complaint because soapboxing diatribes are not personal attacks. Nor is changing position in an argument, which is in fact, coming to a compromise which is good behavior in dispute resolution. Huaiwei at the most complains about certain editors avoiding consensus, or disputing or claiming consensus. These are not faults of behaviour, especially if it is just one or two posts. It is not a personal attack. "Numerous attempts on the talk page" doesn't quite cut it as an explanation of "failure to resolve the dispute". Was there any attempt to declare, "here's my position, here's yours. How can we resolve this effectively?" No, rather the opposing editors continued to state their points without trying to resolve the dispute and coming to a compromise. Compromise is very much a part of dispute resolution. Most of the arguments stated in this RfC should be disagreed upon, although I must caution Huaiwei about making strong remarks. The filers of this RFC should also be reminded that having a POV is not against policy: everybody has a POV - rather, implementing their POV in the article is. There's nothing wrong with stating a POV on a talk page. Very few policy violations seem to be seen here, only one or two which disrupted the harmony of the community (did you know, worse goes on at Talk:global warming?), and was minimal. Only a few where mistakes about consensus were assumed. These could all have been corrected had both sides tried to be open-minded about the entire issue. Both sides are urged to review themselves before engaging any further. As it is seen, this is all a talk page dispute, there has been no revert warring. Very little policy has been violated.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Natalinasmpf 11:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 14:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. SchmuckyTheCat 19:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 21:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. OnceBitten 15:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. --Terence Ong Talk 11:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. JoaoRicardotalk 15:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by user:Monicasdude

This RfC is inappropriate. On December 4, ArbComm issued a decision binding three editors, including the subject of this RfC. The ArbComm decision placed all three users on one-year probation regarding edits in a subject are, and the article involved in this RfC falls within that subject area. The article was subjected to a disruptive editing dispute leading to page protection. The ArbComm decision called for further sanctions against any or all of the three editors who engaged in disruptive editing in subject area articles. The only relevant questions, as I see it, are the determination of which editors have violated their probation by engaging in disruptive behavior, and what level(s) of additional sanctions may be appropriate in those cases. Neither of these questions is a suitable subject for an RfC; to refer those questions to an RfC suggests, where intentionally or not, that the ArbComm decision is neither sufficient nor binding. To limit the RfC to one of the three editors involved is also inappropriate.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Monicasdude 16:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Just to clarify, are you suggesting that I take this to ArbCom? That is not appropriate as per the dispute resolution guidelines, which state that ArbCom should be a last resort. Note also that we cannot take an RfC against more than one person. We would have to file separate RfCs. However, the issue is Huaiwei's behaviour; there should be no need to take out one against User:Instantnood too for example who has stayed away from this dispute; that's unreasonable. enochlau (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting you "take this" to ArbComm; I'm pointing out that this is part of an ongoing dispute on which ArbComm has already ruled, and that the appropriate response is administrator action to enforce the applicable ArbComm ruling, which is barely two weeks old. Monicasdude 14:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I do not see how User:Instantnood has, as you said, "stayed away from this dispute". He has made 5 of the last 20 edits on the page Chinese New Years greetings. Now away from the talkpage, on the other hand... let's see, one edit total. Now if anything else this would probably be construed as unwillingness to cooperate and communicate... -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by User:SchmuckyTheCat

The RfC is inappropriate. The ArbCom specifically said that the terms of the probation were to bring disputes to WP:AN/I. In other ArbCom cases, ArbCom members have repeatedly said WP:AN/I is the place to bring the issue.

See User_talk:Bishonen#Huaiwei. It was taken here due to comments by another administrator. I am thinking of taking it back there, or just dropping it altogether... enochlau (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. SchmuckyTheCat 19:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Addendum to my outside view: It's too bad that a background in conflict/dispute resolution isn't a requirement to be an administrator. It's totally glossed over on WP:RfA in favor of edit counts and friendliness. The result is that disputes like this that get reported to WP:AN/I are repeatedly ignored and result in no action because no administrator actually wants to go dive in to the issue and figure it out. The ones that do take on conflict are absolutely unprepared and thus get accused of being some sort of cabalistic fiend for a naive mistake. This is true for the dozen or so post-ArbCom cases where people bring issues to WP:AN/I. SchmuckyTheCat 19:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Since SchmuckyTheCat has been named by the "plaintiffs" of this RfC, I think his comments should definitely NOT fall under "Outside views"? -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 21:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not a "plaintiff". I'm involved in their dispute, but not in this RfC. SchmuckyTheCat 00:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Miborovsky, in addition to one made by Natalinasmpf

Enochlau and Novacatz seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill in some instances, and doing the reverse in others. I'm not going to pass judgments on the entire incident, but from what I've read of just the relevant discussion cited in this very RfC, I do have a few comments to make:

Quoting: This was initally viewed with some humour [24] and good faith [25][26].

1. Now this did not seem in the least bit humorous to me, and I'm easily amused. The 2 comments described as "good faith" seemed sarcastic and patronising to me. Not in the least bit "good faith".

Under "Evidence of disputed behaviour", Huaiwei changing his position just to argue

2. On Wikipedia, many times we have to compromise (and work with!) other editors to make articles better. Compromising, or what you seem to have labeled "changing his position just to argue" is something Wikipedia wants in its editors! Of course I'm not privy to the entire incident having just read the 2 links provided, so correct me (and show us) that Huaiwei was indeed doing what you say he was doing.

3. Now I'd like to impart the following words of wisdom:

*Cue dramatic music* We never paid any heed to the ancient WikiPolicies. Like fools we clung to old hatred, and revert-warred as we had for generations... until the day the sky rained fire and ArbComm blocked us all. -- The Last WikiProphet 21:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

4. I think we should also protect the page for the moment, no? -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 21:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


Outside view by user:OnceBitten

Having read over this RfC I can clearly see how user:Huaiwei's behaviors have a been a concern for the members who have certified the RfC. But, having been a victim of an RfC last year (under my main Wikipedia ID) that was simply one personal attack after another, I'm sensative to the issue of RfC's that simply turn into exercises in charecter assissination.

While I see where the parties have engaged with one and other in rather heated discussions, user:Huaiwei hasn't been always handled his/her end of the conversation as "maturely" as it could be. user:Huaiwei has used some "sass" shall we say, but I simply don't see a pattern of engrained vitriol, spite or arrogance. I feel that some of the comments made are attributed to the very nature of Wikipedia, that is to say that some members view the lack of person to person interaction as license to treat people in a somewhat less civilized manner becuase of the anonymity of WWW conmunications.

Also, and as it has been pointed out above, the claim that Don't be a dick isn't an official policy of Wikipedia, but more a missive on Meta-Wiki. At the very least and to be fair to user:Huaiwei, this item deserves a "strike through" <s> </s> to take it out of play. OnceBitten 15:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  1. OnceBitten 14:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by user:JPD

It seems that Huaiwei has been accused of something along the lines of "arguing for the sake of an argument", including changing positions in order to continue disagreeing with certain people. Huaiwei has also acused enochlau of similar things on the relevant talk page. Clearly, this isn't the sort of changing position that could be called compromising, and is to be discouraged. However, it is not easy to be sure that either accusation is true. The discussion has certainly degenerated into attacks resulting in this RfC. It is clear to me that Huaiwei has repeatedly misunderstood and hence misrepresented, enochlau and possibly others. I would like to think this is accidental, but it is definitely what has caused both allegations of arguing for the sake of arguing. Rather than sorting out these misunderstandings, Huaiwei has generally continued in an "adversarial" tone, to the point where it is obviously very hard for anyone to have a constructive discussion. I suggest that Huaiwei needs to put more effort into making sure he understands what others are saying, assuming good faith and avoiding personal attacks in the form of attributing motives to people. Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. JPD (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Novacatz novacatz 09:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you show examples of my changing of positions in support of your viewpoint above?--Huaiwei 05:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think the allegation of changing positions is true. It seems to me that you misunderstood enochlau, and this made it look like you changed your position. To spell it out, enochlau asked whether everyone approved of the move, and you said no. You then seemed to be in favour of the move after it was clear enochlau was against it. You later made it clear that you understood the original question to be asking whether anyone disapproved of the move, which would explain everything. JPD (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
How about some diffs so that I know where I am allerged to have changed my position?--Huaiwei 12:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The allegation is on this page, number 6 under "Evidence of disputed behaviour". The two diffs there show the discussion I quoted above. You later make it appear that you had misunderstood the question you were answering, in the second last paragraph added in [27]. Without realising that you had misunderstood, and how you had misunderstood, it would look like you were being particularly difficult, and from your perspective it looked like the others were being similarly difficult. These things happen, but the best way to respond is to assume good faith, which hopefully leades to misunderstandings being cleared up. JPD (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.