Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Xiong

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, not different disputes. 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: 21:34, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 14:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC).

Statement of the dispute[edit]

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.


Over the last few weeks, Xiong has been expressing a number of his views related to a multitude of issues. While we all should respect viewpoints, Xiong has been challenging, accusatory, and insulting to the point where productive dialogue does not seem possible. He has also taken a number of disruptive actions which show disregard for community standards and established procedures

It is the signer's hope that Xiong will take this as constructive feedback, stop being disruptive and argumentative, and make the necessary changes to foster a better editing environment.

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  • Xiong nominates Template:tfd itself for deletion (see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted#Template:Tfd) on 17:07, 2005 Apr 5
    • On this occasion, Xiong adds the text of the TFD notice to the TFD template itself, effectively doubling the visible text. This is seen by many as overly disruptive, and it was removed. Xiong edit warred in order to replace the tag, as he put it - "tagged per inflexible procedure" and "sorry, but policy is policy -- all nominated templates must be tagged -- see TfD policy"
  • Personal attacks, incivility, failure to assume good faith in the actions of others
    • 15:06, 2005 Apr 4 - "Netoholic (is) ... far more dangerous than any common vandal."
    • 05:43, 2005 Apr 10 - "Netoholic ... continues to rampage unchecked. His actions are evil, a menace to the project"
    • 00:13, 2005 Apr 19 - "How can so many smart people be so dumb?" with the edit summary "tool for fools"
    • 21:23, Apr 9, 2005 - "Show me a few heads on pikes, and I will begin to believe you. I need to see some adults around here, unafraid to take abrupt action to protect the fabric of the community against predators and carpetbaggers. ... [Netaholic's] payoff comes in the form of manhours pissed away dealing with his bullshit." - In response to a comment that he should "relax".
    • 19:40, 19 Apr 2005 Ad hominem attacks on those trying to resolve a dispute with him.
    • 04:27, 24 Apr 2005 To cesarb: "Do the research before you vote. If you don't want to be tagged a deletionist fanatic, think before you act.".
  • Re-creation of deleted pages/failure to accept consensus during the deletion process

Applicable policies[edit]

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point - Essentially, it can be seen as disruptive to take an action which one has vocally spoke out against.
  2. Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page
  3. Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Civility
  4. Wikipedia:Consensus
  5. Wikipedia:Edit war, Wikipedia:Three-revert rule
  6. Wikipedia:Writers rules of engagement (filibustering)

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Regarding removal of {{tfd}} tags - [6] [7]
  2. Regarding the appropriateness of moving the illustration guide to Wikibooks - [8], [9]
  3. Regarding assumption of bad faith and maintaining civility - [10]
  4. Regarding community practices related to refactoring long Talk pages - [11] [12] [13]
  5. Comments in reply to his posts on Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion
  6. Regarding WP:POINT and filibustering: [14] (sections 20. {tfd} tag f**ks up display of tagged template, 21. Let it be, and 21.1. TfD and Xiong)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Netoholic @ 21:34, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)
  2. Korath (Talk) 23:36, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC) (Note also that of Xiong's "substantive contributions", currently only 77 are to the main article space, and most of them are minor. —Korath (Talk) 03:05, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC))
  3. As an "outsider" to the dispute, I messaged Xiong telling him his behaviour was inappropriate and that he should calm down. He responded "not in your lifetime" and entered into a paranoid rant ([15]). This is an instance of disrupting the 'pedia to make a point from a smart contributor with a possible case of MPOV. -- FP 01:45, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Omegatron 21:53, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC) - I have issues with Netaholic's behavior as well, but it will be dealt with independently. Xiong's characterization of anyone who disagrees with him as a pawn of Netaholic or part of a conspiratorial cabal is ridiculous. His contributions to the encyclopedia itself are minimal compared to his contributions to our combined wikistress levels. He has a grand idea of what Wikipedia should be, but refuses to take part in the normal discussion/consensus process we use to effect such changes (despite having a few genuinely good ideas).

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. In my opinion, it was disruptive to nominate Template:tfd and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion to be deleted themselves. Rhobite 00:32, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  2. cesarb 01:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Postdlf 02:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. Carnildo 05:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. I can overlook a lot, but nominating the TfD page on VfD was highly inappropriate and Xiong knew that. — Knowledge Seeker 06:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. Seems highly disruptive behaviour to me. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  7. I have limited direct experience of Xiong's behaviour, but what I do have is represented accurately by the evidence presented here. Thryduulf 19:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  8. I've checked out his contributions, and while he has made some good contributions, he has also caused a lot of unnecessary conflict and disruption. Nominating Wikipedia:Templates for deletion is a serious case of WP:POINT and it definitely got my attention. --Deathphoenix 03:51, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
--Angr/comhrá 17:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)Sorry, I confused Xiong with Jiang, who was being disruptive a while back but whom I haven't encountered lately. --Angr/comhrá 10:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. Xiong openly attacked Starfleet ranks and insignia through two Featured article nominations giving indications that it was a useless article and those connected with it were somehow beneath him. He also referred to people working on the article as "otaku who drool over them" on a talk page about colors on Wikipedia. This user has violated every aspect of Wikipedia:Civility. -Husnock 05:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


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.

{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 ~~~~):

  • I am the member who is the subject of this RfC. I'll admit to an occasional incivility. Like most of us, I have a very limited amount of time to invest in this project, and I'm not happy to see it wasted away dealing with members who seem to have unlimited time in which to be destructive.
Before I respond to the charges point-by-point, I wish to call attention to two points of my own: the instigator of this RfC, Netoholic, is currently in arbitration, and a broad spectrum of community members have lodged evidence against him. He is under a temporary injunction, which he flaunts, and yet which irritates him to seek other means of venting his frustration.
I maintain that this user is systematically stalking me throughout the project, disrupting all I do. I have petitioned ArbCom directly for an emergency injunction -- before that, in similar terms, I asked this of 2 or 3 admins directly:
My request is duplicated here; any member with the power to act is encouraged to do so.
I tire of point-by-point rebuttal, and if you do too, and are willing to implement the emergency injunction, then perhaps you'll feel it unnecessary. For the sake of completeness, however:
  • I have indeed challenged Netoholic on several occasions to justify his destructive behavior. He is unable to reply. I do not doubt he finds this inconvenient.
  • Contention for its own sake is evil, but open debate on merits is good. I have always responded clearly to any question put to me. Netoholic has generally responded to my questions with scorn and argument ad hominem.
  • Tagging templates is too complex a topic to go into here; I've expressed my views in other places at great length and with extreme attention to technical details. In short, though, Netoholic is using the tag to vandalize perfectly good templates. He takes whichever point of view suits him at the moment: tags the templates he does not like, removes the tag when he cares not for it. If he is granted that freedom, I assert the identical privilege. The tag-removal-and-replacement war has played out with the participation of many members; I am only one of the parties involved -- though I do agree that Netoholic and I are the principal contenders.
  • I nominated a page for deletion. What of it? My nomination is in good faith; read my argument there if you doubt me.
  • I am willing to entertain a move for the "tutorial formerly named Prince". But let he who proposes the move do the work -- or at least share in it. Of course, Netoholic's demand that the tutorial move is merely another dimension of his vendetta.
Note what a clever bit of warcraft it is to tag this tutorial. It is such an arduous task to move the page interwiki, together with all its images, and fix all links in and out, that only a madman would continue to do substantive work on it until the controversy ends. But there is no interwiki move process equivalent, say, to VfD; thus the tag is presumed immortal.
If any reviewer of my response finds merit, let him impose upon Netoholic the punishment of carrying out the move he proposes -- with stiff penalties to apply if he botches the job.
  • Many users archive to history; I have begun to do the same. Netoholic blanks his Talk page, and fails to provide a link to the prior version. I invariably link to the prior version. Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page ends with the words, ...there are no fixed rules about archiving discussions on Wikipedia. If Netoholic has a preferred method of archival, I do not interfere with him. The content remains in history, with a clear link. He may pull it out at anytime, create a subpage, do what he likes. But I insist on the need to archive over-long pages. Otherwise, they are simply closed to users, like me, with underpowered machines. We can neither read nor comment.
  • I will cop to revert warring -- invariably with Netoholic as my adversary, with or without his sparewheels.
  • Netoholic is a menace to our community -- the evidence is so overwhelming that ArbCom is drowning under the weight. I have gone out of my way to assume good faith on the part of others who appear to act as part of his clique. Nothing whatever is to be gained by assuming good faith on the part of an obviously disruptive element; he exploits this window of good will to continue his rampage. It is way past time to deal with him in summary fashion.
  • Don't know if it is a violation of community standards to be frightened -- I do admit I was badly upset on a couple of occasions when Netoholic and his crew took high-handed actions. At one point, I was surely convinced that anything I posted anywhere, critical of Netoholic, would be deleted -- not blanked, but deleted entirely. This was an overreaction, and I went around retracting it. Just because they're out to get you, doesn't mean you're not paranoid. Conspiracy is too strong a term; Netoholic's clique is not so secret or well-organized -- and insufficiently powerful for the sort of total obliteration I feared.
  • Somewhat amusing to see Wikipedia:Writers rules of engagement cited; Netoholic has violated every principle on that page. I am charged with "filibustering" -- frankly, I don't see how that is possible on a wiki. We are not going to run out of server space, and regardless of the length of my comments, we will never hit the bottom of the page. My comments never delay any process; it may take me hours to compose a clear response, but it is inserted at the touch of a button, and nobody is required to wait. On occasion, I discover an edit conflict, and am scrupulous to ensure that all comments are preserved.
What really has Netoholic annoyed is that I make points to which he is unable to respond. He plays in technical areas, knowing full well that few members have the background to understand all the consequences of his actions. I color in that technical background, often with lucid illustration, and ask specific questions of him. He throws out a one- or three-line accusation, often ad hominem, usually on a superficial matter; and I comprehensively rebut his "point".
All that said, there is nothing that annoys me more than a party to a conflict who insists on his own total innocence, and then paints the other party in pure black. I have, on more than one occasion, said that Netoholic is a smart guy, and could be a useful asset to the Wikipedian Community and our Project -- if only he could control his tenacious and fluid attacks on whatever he perceives to be opposition. Meanwhile, I am ashamed to say that I have indeed been derailed, by his vendetta, from my substantive contributions.
I am a graphic artist, so for me the simplest illustration is often a visual one. Here are the faces the two of us present to the commmunity. Guess who is who.
It is my earnest hope that some wise Old Head will simply take it upon himself to immediately terminate this conflict, and forbid both Netoholic and myself from edits outside of our own user pseudospaces for the duration of his RfA case (and, perhaps, for my RfC, too). Since my contributions to the project are largely substantial, I admit this will not inconvenience me -- I can continue to develop my work offline, if need be. Perhaps Netoholic will also discover the joys of substantive contribution. In any case, peace will prevail. — Xiongtalk 02:36, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Response to Korath[edit]

I respond to Korath's notation that I have only made 77 contributions in mainspace. Can't say if it's true or not, but I agree that he and Netoholic have done a lot to derail me. In any case, I consider the tutorial formerly known as Prince to be my best work. Or, for another example, the tactful negotiations leading up to the licensing of Image:AsimovOnThrone.png. Not all work is measured in keystrokes. — Xiongtalk 07:15, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Response to Omegatron[edit]

He has a grand idea of what Wikipedia should be, but refuses to take part in the normal discussion/consensus process...

I do indeed have a grand idea: that Wikipedia is a project belonging to humanity, whose goal is the formation of an encyclopedia: a storehouse of factual knowledge. But then, I get that straight from the foundation issues and similar well-respected policies (WP:NOT#What the community is not, Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License); they may be rather muddy texts in places, but the meaning is clear: Wikipedia is not a playground, a battleground, an MMORPG, or a game of Nomic or Mao. We do not qualify members according to age, but we are all expected to act like adults. That means replying directly to questions and avoiding the argument ad hominem, among other things. It means playing by the rules and most of all, using common sense at all times.
I am most willing to discuss changes to process. What really gets my goat is when certain users subvert process for their own immediate and personal ends. The most blatant example of this tomfoolery was the amendment of TfD process to support the indefinite retention of the {tfd} tag on Template:Divbox. This drastic amendment was performed minutes after I quite properly -- at the conclusion of process -- removed the disruptive tag and moved discussion to the template's Talk page. I wrote up the underhanded shenannigans in some detail in a text now resident at User:Xiong/Minitrue. Thus far, nobody has attempted to defend the subversion.
The clique of users who support Netoholic in his vendetta are not so well-coordinated as to form a cabal; not so powerful; nor so secret. But the same names come up again and again, in history after history, as they do here. Judge for yourself.Xiongtalk 04:30, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

Response to TenOfAllTrades[edit]

I ask: If the page, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion is healthy, can it not withstand review? And if it ails, is not that review demanded? I did not blank the offending page and replace it with Image:Autofree.png.
I seriously doubt that any member who participated in VfD actually took the time and trouble to look at the nominated page. I am nearly certain that no member invested effort to improve the page, for it is now the same muddle it was. — Xiongtalk 18:46, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
Xiong, you've been here long enough to know that VfD isn't the place to discuss policy. Whether TfD ought to be reviewed is immaterial to that point. You're still welcome to start a proper discussion through TfD's Talk page, the Village Pump, and/or RfC—and all of those suggestions have been made to you before. Bear in mind it is also possible that a consensus already exists within the community that TfD is largely acceptable as it is.
I would encourage you to refrain from accusing editors of not reading the pages that they vote on on VfD. Since you have seen my comments on TfD, it follows that I very likely have read the page. The same can be said about many other contributors to that VfD discussion. I understand that you may be frustrated right now, but throwing about accusations of bad faith is not helpful. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 00:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sanger on Slashdot[edit] a very long dispute with any trollish type, it is only a matter of time before some epithet gets bandied about, since they are so darned useful (and accurate) when applied to trollish types. [16]

Response to Radiant et al re Netoholic[edit]

I'm willing that my actions stand or fall on their merits -- and where I've been extreme, let me be censured. But actually this RfC does bear very heavily on Netoholic -- and while the bulk of my war has been against him, his war has been against a broad cross-section of the community.

Netoholic brought this RfC against me as part of his personal vendetta; brought some support with him; and, as chickens in a barnyard will, some come to peck where they think they see blood. It is all a sideshow, though. What Netoholic ought to have done, quite properly, is demand that I be included in his ArbCom case as an involved party. Then I would be immediately subject to ArbCom ruling.

We've both been bad, but he bit me first -- and if you can pull him off and sit on him and his sparewheels, I think you'll find me a rather reasonable and agreeable fellow. — Xiongtalk 23:53, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

  • Okay. Please stop, take a deep breath, and calm down. You have just admitted to making 'war' against Netoholic, which sounds to me like a Very Bad Thing. "He bit me first" is no excuse for biting back - turn the proverbial other cheek and stick with Civility and Wikiquette. This RfC is not a vendetta of anyone against you. This RfC points out that several people are unhappy with your methods. I do believe you want to change Wikipedia for the better. Very good. So set up a discussion page and poll for new policy - I've done it thrice already and it works. Radiant_* 08:25, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
First, you pull him off my back. Then, tell me to calm down -- you needn't bother, though; I'll calm down on my own. As long as he is actively attacking me -- and that's within the last 24 hours -- I will not suffer blows gladly. I am not a Christian. I may not forgive-and-forget, but I do pass quickly over past insults -- I have other things to keep me busy. Make Netoholic get on his side of the bed, and then see if you still find my actions objectionable. — Xiongtalk 17:59, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

Response to Deathphoenix[edit]

Does this mean you aren't open to criticism about anything related to China? -- I do not edit at all in any China-related article, so I don't think there is any cause. If I should edit in some China-related fashion, of course my edit is subject to the same scrutiny as any other -- of course I own nothing; in most cases, I know nothing about China.

There's a lot of background here, and to keep it short, I'll just say I really don't want to be dragged into any battle between Chinese, on Chinese topics. Okay? — Xiongtalk 18:10, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)

  • Fair enough. I just saw that as a potential sign of being open or closed to crticism in other areas, as well as article ownership. I feel very strongly about (or against, in this case) article ownership. --Deathphoenix 19:44, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The only substantial position I have even taken on China-related matters is Don't make war on China-related matters all over the project. And I'm fairly intolerant of criticism on this position. When it becomes well-defended policy, I may consider contributing my unusual perspective on things Chinese; and at that time, I expect my edits to be subject to the same criticism as any other. — Xiongtalk* 00:01, 2005 August 14 (UTC)

Outside view[edit]

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.

Thoughout Wikipedia history, there have been a number of disputes that have resulted in MeatBall:ForestFires, that is, where the dispute overflows whatever bounds are set for it and engulfs far more pages than it deserves. It seems to me that this is one such dispute. I believe that it is premature to give this dispute much consideration until the AC has resolved the matter of Netoholic presently before it, something that should complete soon.

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

  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  2. TTLightningRod 17:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. BlankVerse 08:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. --Jondel 05:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Users who do not endorse this,

  1. Radiant_* 14:40, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC) - I do not think that Xiong's apparent poor relation with Netoholic is relevant. There are some users that have legitimate complaints against Xiong regarding his behavior on TfD in particular; while Netoholic did start this RfC, three others have endorsed it and five others have agreed with his summary. It would not be fair to stigmatize them as the 'Netoholic cabal' (TINC). Radiant_* 14:40, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  2. TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) Whatever Xiong's dispute with Netoholic, there's no good reason to nominate TfD on VfD. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 17:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Netoholic, while he is under arbitration, has not been ostracised, and is still part of the community. He has a perfect right to bring this RFC, and I quite agree with him about Xiong's behaviour. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. I don't care if Willy on Wheels made this RFC - it's still valid, and obviously it's something to be acted upon. ugen64 06:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  5. Until the ArbCom issue a rulling or temporary injunction on Netoholic that prevents him bringing RfC's (as they have done with other users, e.g. CheeseDreams, his interaction with the commitee is irrelevant to this discussion. Thryduulf 20:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  6. I don't think it's valid to defend yourself in an RfC by attacking the nominator when the points you are using aren't valid to the discussion (ie, Netoholic's arbitration case has nothing to do with his conflict with Xiong). If this RfC is decertified because of that, I'm sure there are plenty of people (such as the other three users certifying this RfC) who would be willing to recreate/renominate this RfC (just to be clear: I meant Xiong defending himself). --Deathphoenix 03:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Outside view #2[edit]

I feel that the conflict between Netoholic and Xiong is bad for both users and bad for Wikipedia, and bad especially for the WP:TFD page where the battles tend to center. Both of these users deserve some of the blame for this situation, and both have at times acted in an irresponsible manner. Regardless of who started it and why, it must stop.

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

  1. Firebug 06:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary, but with reservations (sign with ~~~~:

  1. Yes, the conflict between Netoholic and Xiong is a Bad Thing, and yes it ought to stop, but I feel this is an over-simplification of the issue. The beahviour exhibited by Xiong that led to this RfC is wider than his interaction with Netoholic, evidenced by the other users also certifying above. Thryduulf 09:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Outside view #3[edit]

This is a minor point, so I don't know if it belongs in its own outside view entry. There is one small sentence in Xiong's user page that got me thinking:

I'm new to Wikipedia editing and open to criticism about anything unrelated to China.

Does this mean you aren't open to criticism about anything related to China? If so, this means you believe that you are an infallible expert on matters relating to China and are unwilling to hear any criticism wrt to it. This usually indicates a leaning towards "owning" any edits that you make, and IMO, this sort of thing goes against everything Wikipedia stands for. You do not own any articles or edits. Once you make it, it's no longer yours. In addition, you can't close your mind to criticism in any area, because this creates more conflict. No matter what you know, there's always at least one person who knows a little more than you (if only in one specific niche subject). That person you dismiss for making a change to your edit on China history might be a ninety year old Chinese historian who studied the ancient texts for the past seventy years. You never know.

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

  1. Deathphoenix 14:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Users who do not endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. This is far fetched. Assume good faith! There are many good reasons why someone would not want to discuss a certain topic. Maybe he has been burnt by discussions about China, maybe he has friends there whom he does not want to compromise, maybe he was being facetious, or maybe he just loves China. Sebastian (talk) 07:53, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
See above. He's answered my concerns. --Deathphoenix 11:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.