Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nationalist

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: 00:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 11:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC).

Nationalist (talk • contribs • logs)

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

1 Statement of the dispute
2 Response
3 Outside view
- 3.1 Outside view by KazakhPol
4 Discussion

[edit] Statement of the dispute

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

Since his first edit in Wikipedia, Nationalist has been and is still persistent on his own point of view concerning the political status of Taiwan; he has been tagging "Republic of China" everywhere and sometimes replacing "Taiwan" with it. Several users, including me, have tried to get him into discussing about this matter, but in vain; he stays put with his own opinion on the naming conventions and continues his widespread edits on articles related to Taiwan and ROC. For this, he was blocked five times for a total of approximately 2 months and 284 hours.

Note: this case has been filed in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration because the status quo has not made any progress since the RFC was filed.

[edit] Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

To reach a clear and solid consensus on this issue between all of us by all means. While Nationalist is persistent on the de-facto situation with ROC governing Taiwan, I am more concerned with the understanding of a general audience, who for the majority might not understand Nationalist's opinion.
To halt the edit war going on in various Taiwan/ROC-related articles, especially those between Nationalist and User:Jerrypp772000, who was also blocked twice for 3RR violation in this for a total of 32 hours.
To stop the disruptive behavior of Nationalist, which is only getting worse as time passes. This request might sound selfish, but I believe the majority has seen and/or experienced his incivility.

[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.}

Users actively involved in this conflict: Nationalist/Taiwanlove/Sid212/Chunghwa Pride/NiceGuy81/Taiwan53/Central Mountain/Alex678, Jerrypp772000, and myself

Users involved in this conflict occasionally: Jiang, Borgarde, and Yankees76

Users involved only in various revisions: Mattingly23, Corticopia, Shreshth91, Jumping cheese, Kusunose, Chris 73, Tkynerd, Flakeloaf and anyone who has ever involved in the widespread political edit war

~~While Nationalist persists to use ROC on all political context that he thinks using "Taiwan" is wrong~~ While Nationalist persists to use ROC for all politically related context that he thinks using "Taiwan" only is wrong, Jerrypp772000 emphasizes more on common usage of Taiwan over ROC.
Attempts to discuss about this matter have taken place in various talk pages, mainly between Nationalist and Jerrypp772000. However, while the discussion is barely gaining any progress, there is no sign of ceasing edit war between these two users.
The disruption that Nationalist (and possibly Jerrypp772000) created also triggered some other users who were involved only marginally in reverting some of his edits. He just reverted them all, sometimes with no edit summaries written.

[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.)

Block log (see also here)

1st 3RR violation
2nd 3RR violation, although the block was more because of profanity in edit summary. Quotation: "Gave that guy a {{non-admin fwarn}} with a link to this section. Told me to fuck off. Tuxide 05:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)"
3rd block for personal attack: see next section below.
3rd 3RR violation and 4th block, this time attempted to use sockpuppet User:Taiwanlove to circumvent 3RR violation. Also see RfCU result and discussion of it.
5th block for the reason stated in the diff link (reblocked for one month on 02:50, 2007 February 17).

Assuming bad faith/personal attacks

[1]
[2]
[3] (in edit summary)
[4] (in edit summary)
[5]
[6]
[7] (Both warnings contain the diff link of assuming bad faith/personal attack)
More attack, and it's only getting worse
Personal attack using sock
same as above
same as above

Note: there are more examples that can be found at his contributions.

Lack of self-criticism in attitude

His behavior also displays no regret for what others deemed his contributions as disruptive after being blocked for several times. Evidence: [8] - His request to unblock refuses to recognize his wrongdoing and puts the blame falsely to other people.

Incivility

His overall contributions, when matched with comments from other editors, displays his incivility and unwillingness to resolve the dispute peacefully for a consensus. Example:

"Follow conventions and dont try to game the system" (This is also his latest edit on a Wikipedia article after I have urged him to stop and discuss for a consensus in his talk page. The very next thing he did with his own talk page was simply blanking it.)
"Follow conventions or I will file an RFC against you"
ArbCom ruled it that restoring a talk page blanked by the owner is harassment... but this, to me, is going too far, as it is considered extremely rude to edit others comment, let alone posting (absurd) threats.
Another message similar to #2: "You confuse people with your edits. Stop it. The consensus does not support you. Stop before I file an RFC against you."

Selective dismissal of other inputs

He has also for more than once selectively ignored others' opinions/arguments and comment no further about them. One example is the following conversation between User:Borgarde and him: 1st 2nd 3rd 4th (See talk page for my question of it) 5th... and the conversation ends abruptly without Nationalist's next response other than blanking his own talk page. Also, it is observed that he singles out only the details he can make more arguments/bad faith/attacks of, as shown in this 3-diff link.

Abuse of sockpuppetry

Nationalist has multiple abuse records of sockpuppetry with accounts listed below:

User:Taiwanlove
User:Sid212, who is now blocked [9] as a "likely" sockpuppet of Nationalist.
User:Chunghwa Pride appears right after Sid212 was blocked, and was recently confirmed and subsequently blocked as a sockpuppet of Nationalist.
User:NiceGuy81 (see this diff from the RfCU)
User:Taiwan53
User:Chunghwa Republic. Suspected sock, blocked on strong evidence from editing patterns.
User:Central Mountain
User:Alex678. See this, this sock had not been blocked yet, and had vandalized here, here, and here after he was confirmed to be a sock.

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

Violation-related:

Dispute-related:

I'm sure there is a link related to how Wikipedia striving to make their content more accessible to a general audience tops over any Wikipedia policies. If you know it, please substitute this message with the full name of the wikilink to it. Thanks.

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

(provide diffs and links)

User talk:Yankees76/Archive 3#Chien-ming Wang
Talk:Chien-Ming Wang#Birthplace
Talk:Guantian, Tainan (This talk page contains only the discussion itself, so a diff is not really necessary)
Talk:Jhunan, Miaoli (same as above)
Talk:Yuanlin, Changhua (same as above)
User talk:Sid212#Compromise maybe. This diff also includes more subtle personal attacks.
Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-01-10_Chi-ling_Lin A MedCab request that failed because Nationalist chose not to respond even after he was notified about the mediation.
Talk:Yuanshan, Yilan (same as #3)
Talk:Dongshan, Yilan (same as #3; note the profanity by Nationalist directed toward Jerrypp772000 here)
Talk:Rende, Tainan (same as #3; this diff link shows his stubbornness solely on the Naming conventions and refusals to follow other listed Wikipedia policies and guidelines (violation-wise or dispute-wise) and other users' inputs)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Vic₂₂₆₎ 02:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Flakeloaf 05:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Jerrypp772000 20:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

Having been involved with articles in this category for sometime, I have noticed the aforementioned dispute. While I have become tangentially involved, to be honest I've been keeping my distance, as I'm still rather burned out from the last time the whole ROC/Taiwan/whatever dispute turned ugly. However, in light of the CheckUser report confirming the use of sockpuppets by User:Nationalist, I feel intervention is now necessary as this has escalated well beyond a simple content dispute. Therefore, endorsed under the understanding that other editors involved in the content dispute (User:Jerrypp772000, I'm looking at you) do not take this as a licence to push their own POVs. -- Loren 08:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorsed. I have recently come across Nationalist's behaviour, and I concur with the above views. He or she has been making POV edits that disrupt large numbers of articles. Sometimes the changes are small, but they are still ridiculous and could be counted as vandalism. John Smith's 20:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Endorsed I've watched this unfold for nearly a month - and also have had discussions on my talk page with this user. The incivil behaviour and blatant disregard of Wikipedia's core policies via his disruptive behaviour and disregard of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process has become quite serious. Even more interesting is the user coming to his defense below also has an RFC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KazakhPol for similar behaviour. Yankees76 04:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[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.}

While Nationalist persists to use ROC on all political context that he thinks using "Taiwan" is wrong, Jerrypp772000 emphasizes more on common usage of Taiwan over ROC.

Actually, this statement is completely false. I use Republic of China when necessary, but on township articles I would use County, Taiwan, Republic of China. That is the correct way.

Users who endorse this summary:

Nationalist 03:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
KazakhPol 04:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[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.

{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.}

[edit] Outside view by KazakhPol

I see a minimal amount of incivility from Nationalist. In terms of the 3RR violations, his real mistake was not reporting the other user(s) on WP:AN. He is right about the naming conventions and you (Jerry) are wrong. It is quite simple. KazakhPol 04:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

[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.