Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/TingMing/Proposed decision

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Protection of [[Central Bank of the Republic of China (Taiwan)]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: Noted. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 03:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: This is the link, which seems to be an even split.Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 03:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me! 03:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: That's ok, I found a more recent thing, where it was more clearcut. Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 03:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmed usage of Sockpuppets for block evasion by TingMing 

message: 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)
replies: text: Well, he went berserk apparently:  (talk · contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log]). -Loren 01:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Checkuser comes out  or less -- Return of the Sith came in through an open proxy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Indef. banned. Vic226說 06:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New block on TingMing