Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/TingMing

message: This was the most random thing that someone could have done to me. I did not vandalize Wikipedia contrary to this guy's claims. He came out of no where to attack me in the most stupidest and randomest of ways. Maybe is a sock of one of my enemies, like Vic or Jerry or Loren. Well, look I provided the concrete evidence on Momusufan's talk page. Taipei is indeed the provisional capital of the ROC. There's nothing wrong with that. TingMing 00:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look here, your beliefs are nothing. Who cares about you? You are another lost soul in this world. So what? Where is your concrete evidence that I am a sock and am editing without consensus. You are the one wrecking Wiki so face it. Pick on someone your own size. TingMing 03:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Wait what the heck? Now you are accusing Momusufan for being a sockpuppet of Jerry, Loren (and he is a freaking administrator), and even me?? That was a very nice "assuming good faith" on your part. If you think he is a sockpuppet why don't you submit a checkuser request against us instead of shooting random accusations into our faces? For the FIFTH TIME already, read the goddamn WP:CABAL and reconsider your attitudes toward all of us in the past since you came. If you want to keep your zealot behavior with blanket edit-warring over a long span of time nothing is going to improve at all. Vic226說 03:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey TingMing, I understand that these proceedings seem random and sometimes frustrating, but the charges presented here and at the arbitration page are serious. I do not know if the claims made that you are User:Nationalist are true, however your POV, comments, and edits share a similar pattern. I’m not here to criticize you, but to give you advice that you can take or leave it. If you want these proceedings against you to end, you must be willing to cooperate with other editors, even if they do not share your point-of-view. I understand that you have your point-of-view and that you have the right to have it, but here at Wikipedia, we are a community, and as a community we must learn to work together even if it means that we have to humble ourselves and sacrifice our POVs to maintain the integrity and cleanliness of Wikipedia. It is so satisfying to work with other people without the name calling, labelling, insulting – the things that can cause tensions, stress, and conflicts. To do any of that we must break the barriers that cause the unneeded conflicts, tensions, and the stress. As a member of this community speak to another fellow member, I am asking you, TingMing, to break your barriers, to show that you are willing to work with others on this encyclopaedia, to show that you are truly a member of this community and to show to the abCom that you are an editor worth keeping. That’s my advice from one editor to another. Again if you choose to follow it, go ahead, but if you don’t, you’re placing yourself at risk of any consequences that might follow the decisions of the abCom or whoever is making the decision on this page. --Nat Tang  talk to me! | Check on me! | Email Me! 03:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just before I forget, TingMing, I believe the first barrier you need to break is the hostilities that were created through the comments you have written. These editors are not the enemy, but are people who are concern about the integrety of this encyclopaedia, however they have become quite aggrevated by your comments towards them. I am asking you as a fellow editor to follow my advice before it's too late. --Nat Tang  talk to me! | Check on me! | Email Me! 04:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To the other editors: please cool down, I understand that you're fustrated and tired, but for these proceedings to go smoothly, we must be calm, civil and polite, no matter what other people write. --Nat Tang  talk to me! | Check on me! | Email Me! 04:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to ask that all editors involved in this mess to respond, just to get your opinions (without hostile comments please) and to acknowledge that you have read the above. It's not mandatory, I have no objections if you don't. I just want to see these conflicts resolved in a peaceful, non-malicious, non-hostile manner. --Nat Tang  talk to me! | Check on me! | Email Me! 14:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nat, thanks for your comments.  Though I completely understand where Vic's frustration comes from - indeed, I'm nearly that frustrated myself - you are right in calling for calm and civility. I've already said that I don't plan on reverting Ting's unilateral edits (at least, not until consensus is reached or the ArbCom case is decided), and I aim to stick to that plan.  While I wish you luck in getting Ting to behave rationally and reasonably, I am not under any illusions that he will do so (given that he's blithely ignored any such pleas for reason previously).  In any case, thanks for the comments. Cheers --Folic Acid 15:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey TingMing, Please do not use my words against other editors. When I asked the other editors to cool down it was because it was your comments that aggrevated them, and not intendent to be used as a tool against the other editors. TingMing you have to realize that you must humble yourself in order to make peace with the other editors. I understand that Momusufan had written things he shouldn't have and he should face whatever consequences there are, but there is no reason you should continue to write hostile comments about other editors. The fact is that the first step to end this crisis is to in a way sacrifice your POVs and hostilities towards others, humble your mind, heart and soul, and admit your wrongs. --Nat Tang  talk to me! | Check on me! | Email Me! 00:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a few sayings from where I come from: "Love thy neighbour as thyself" and "Do unto others as you would have them do to you". What they mean in context to this situation is that, would you write those comments if instead of VIC, or Loren, or Jerry or Momusufan's names being in the comment and your's was there in their place. Would you? That's some food for thought... --Nat Tang  talk to me! | Check on me! | Email Me! 00:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you understand what point I am trying to get to you? --Nat Tang  talk to me! | Check on me! | Email Me! 00:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  If you understand, just give me a simple "Yes" or a simple "No". --Nat Tang  talk to me! | Check on me! | Email Me! 00:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not appreciate your baseless and utterly random accusations of everyone, including me, of sockpuppetry, vandalism () and more, either. I think I'm one of the short-tempered editors here, yet we have been more than patient with your belligerent behavior through these two months (?) already. The onus of ceasing these struggles against each other—especially you—falls on you, since you are the origin of all troubles so far. Trying to make someone feel guilty of something s/he never did (unless you can prove it like we did here) is not the solution. Vic226說 03:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You claim that you are out of this. Yet you continue to disrupt wikipedia by reverting all my edits and calling it vandalism. Please keep cool and stop that. That is counterproductive. You are not engaging in peaceful discussion but rather attacking and insults. This is against wikipedia policy. Stop it. You are being a hypocrite and a downright liar. TingMing 06:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is exactly what I was advising you not to do. TingMing, your comments continue to aggrevate other editors and that is not going to resolve anything. By calling someelse a hypocrite and a liar is not right and can not be tolerated. Have you asked yourself if you've been hypocirtical or have said false statements yourself? TingMing, the world and the internet is a two-way street, if you call or label someone something, what stopping them from doing the same to you? TingMing, you have to stop a moment and think for a moment what you have written to other and about others. On another but connected topic, you have no right to call other editors "rogue" as other could say the same about you and there is a huge possiblility that there is strong evidence that can be used against you. So in the future, I hope you would watch what you say and use polite, civil, and appropriate diction when you make a statement. --Nat Tang  talk to me! | Check on me! | Email Me! 12:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 2007 

message: Are we suspecting Ting of being a sockpuppet or a puppetmaster?  Given that he's suspected of being linked to User:Sid212, a confirmed sockpuppet of Nationalist, it would seem to indicate that TingMing is not a puppetmaster, but is yet another puppet of the prolific and prodigious User:Nationalist.  Is there a separate page or case investigating the likelihood of the link between Ting and Nationalist?  --Folic Acid 00:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppet or Puppetmaster?