Copied from here.

Original

Pointy edits and/or trolling by User:虞海

Can someone examine the recent mainspace and talkpage edits by 虞海 (talk · contribs) which appear to be clueless, POV pushing or intentional trolling. Here is a summary of events:

user adds a false and POV disclaimer to India and Kashmir articles. (the disclaimer is false since the disputed territories are already properly marked in the maps)
When his edits are reverted by User:Sandeepsp4u, he explains to Sandeepsp4u that he made the edit because, "See what you did on Page Medog: Is this neutral??". Sandeepsp4u has never edited the page Mêdog County!
User 虞海 then readds the false disclaimer to India page, which I revert, with edit-summary, "revert false and pointy disclaimer". I also leave him a note on his talkpage. To this he replies, "I'll do what you did to me to others"
He then follows up by removing comments from some 20 odd Chinese/Tibet county pages, copying my edit summary (from point 3) "revert false and pointy disclaimer", which is not applicable to his edits. (sample links [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], ...)
User:Croquant questions 虞海 about one of the edits and edit summary (from point 4).
At this point 虞海 leaves a message on my talk page which copies verbatim parts of, (1) the message I left for him (point 3) and (2) Croquant's message to him (point 5)

I know this patently bizarre behavior may be hard to follow. Can anyone make sense of all this, and wave either the clue- or block-bat ? Abecedare (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like another case of Disruptive editing to me. Also, note that I've left a warning on his talk page for not assuming good faith for his edits on the article page of India and I'm now sifting through his contribution/edit history to see if he has made any other malicious edits or editing trend that's worth keeping an eye out for. --Dave1185 (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the three strike rule, I've just issued the second warning for his addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on History of Mongolia, now you guys just watch out for the third time he conducts another disruptive editing and report here immediately for the Admins to take the appropriate action. Also, you may report to WP:AIV if any of his subsequent edit(s) are/is deemed to be a vandalism edit, this will surely get himself BLOCKED faster than we can say anything here. --Dave1185 (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Pointy edits and/or trolling by User:虞海

Can someone examine the recent mainspace and talkpage edits by 虞海 (talk · contribs) which appear to be clueless, POV pushing or intentional trolling. Here is a summary of events:

user adds a false and POV disclaimer to India and Kashmir articles. (the disclaimer is false since the disputed territories are already properly marked in the maps)

How do you (Abecedare) say "already properly marked in the maps" in180px India Geographic Map.jpg? In this perspective we can only see Aksai Chin is in light color. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Kashmir articles - it's not because the image has wrong information of de facto administration (there's no wrong information of de facto administration); it's because there's a territory under Chinese administration as a part of Aksai Chin, not a part of Kashmir. It's not a controversial of who is de facto controller of these area (i.e. whether Aksai Chin is a part of India), but a controversial of the position of Aksai Chin (i.e. whether Aksai Chin is a part of Kashmir)! Would you (Abecedare) mind if the article gives the reader a felling that Arunachal is an alias of South Tibet, which is under Indian occupation? --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 12:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When his edits are reverted by User:Sandeepsp4u, he explains to Sandeepsp4u that he made the edit because, "See what you did on Page Medog: Is this neutral??". Sandeepsp4u has never edited the page Mêdog County!

I said "you" as a series of "we, you, they", not a series of "I, you, he/she". I exceedingly estimated his intention, that's my fault. But I've already said sorry (1, 2) to him before Abecedare post this "process in 24h" ANI. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User 虞海 then readds the false disclaimer to India page, which I revert, with edit-summary, "revert false and pointy disclaimer". I also leave him a note on his talkpage. To this he replies, "I'll do what you did to me to others"

How do you (Abecedare) say it's false and pointy? The case in Aksai Chin and South Tibet are analogous, but treated imparity. My work is maintain the internal coherence of Wikipedia according to the NPOV policy. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He then follows up by removing comments from some 20 odd Chinese/Tibet county pages, copying my edit summary (from point 3) "revert false and pointy disclaimer", which is not applicable to his edits. (sample links [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], ...)

Your (Abecedare's) comment told me "the Wikipedia rule" (not the original Wikipedia rule, but the Wikipedia rule according to Abecedare) is such information about de facto administration was considered "false" and "pointy" in Wikipedia, so the direct consequence is Croquant's edits are "false" and "pointy", and should be reverted. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 07:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Croquant questions 虞海 about one of the edits and edit summary (from point 4).

I had no obligation to answer this question, because I was doing things according to Abecedare's Wikipedia rule. Croquant's speech proved Abecedare false, so I turned the question to Abecedare (will mentioned as GM Rules):

if his explain is suitable to the article India and Medog, I'll turn it to Croquant;
if his explain is suitable to the article India only, I'll find the difference about these 2 case; (will mentioned as GM2N)
if his explain is suitable to nothing (i.e. a wrong explain), I won't debate with him (1. I had no obligation to debate with him; 2. If I debate with him, I factitiously made differences between this 2 uniform case, Abecedare and Croquant might versus me using 2 totally difference way, and it's likely that Wikipedia have contradictory policy (suppose they're A and B), if Abecedare use A and Croquant use B I'll be trapped. So I won't reply them by myself unless I found the difference about these 2 case - the GM2N case.), I'll still turn it to Croquant, Croquant will found it's quite easy to debate such an explain and expose it, then I can expose his explain.

It appears that Abecedare has double standard: when I reverted Croquant's edit, it was "tit-for-tat route", but when he reverted my edit, it was merely correct false and pointy edits. He reverted my edit without discuss the issue at the talk page, when I tried to reverted the very same edit, he told me that I should discuss it first.
Also, by saying that he banned the "tit-for-tat route", but "tit-for-tat route" is the most efficient route to solve issues: it reveal the differences of the two side sufficiently and immediately, rather than put aside them. By banning that it means he don't want to settle the differences. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point 虞海 leaves a message on my talk page which copies verbatim parts of, (1) the message I left for him (point 3) and (2) Croquant's message to him (point 5)

The reason I don't reply Abecedare directly has been written into the 3 GM Rules. Now what I need to say is: he didn't answer the question (if he thought these 2 case are totally different, he can explain the difference in order to prevent I copy his exact explain to Croquant's talk page, but he did NOT do that, too). Instead, he send me to an execution-in-24-hours ANI. Saying he can't follow my point, but "this" is definitely easy to understand. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know this patently bizarre behavior may be hard to follow. Can anyone make sense of all this, and wave either the clue- or block-bat ? Abecedare (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You attacked me as "patently bizarre" and "clueless", and send me to a "24-hours shooting execution field", but clearly it's nearly impossible for an accusee to explain for himself in 24-hours. Now I've been banned from editing such controversial article by Dave1185 (Dave1185 obscure the Tibet issue and Mongolia issue, and gave me a "last warning" about these articles. Will relate later.) --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like another case of Disruptive editing to me. Also, note that I've left a warning on his talk page for not assuming good faith for his edits on the article page of India and I'm now sifting through his contribution/edit history to see if he has made any other malicious edits or editing trend that's worth keeping an eye out for. --Dave1185 (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By "Seems like" you forbid me from any kinds of editing which is similar to as I did to History of Mongolia? What a groundless and mostly trumped-up (莫须有) explain! --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By sifting through my contribution you've already assume bad faith on me and treated me in a nitpicky way. But you're asking me for assuming good faith. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 09:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the three strike rule, I've just issued the second warning for his addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on History of Mongolia, now you guys just watch out for the third time he conducts another disruptive editing and report here immediately for the Admins to take the appropriate action. Also, you may report to WP:AIV if any of his subsequent edit(s) are/is deemed to be a vandalism edit, this will surely get himself BLOCKED faster than we can say anything here. --Dave1185 (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It very improper to import such a three strike rule to Wikipedia because it's not Wikipedia policy at all. I don't know if Wikipedia allows authority abuse, but this is definitely wrongdoings. And considering it's an US Arts, I hope you read more about no legal threats.
Also, you're not a WikiAdmin. Who authorized you to threat me? Trolling me?
I suspect your intention: by saying "now you guys just watch out for the third time he conducts another disruptive editing" and "if any of his subsequent edit(s) are/is deemed to be a vandalism edit, this will surely get himself BLOCKED faster than we can say anything here", are you wanting me to be blocked as soon as possible?
And you blend the issue of Medog&India and the topic of History of Mongolia together, but they're totally different. I've already explained my point on issue of Medog&India, and here's the fact of History of Mongolia:

This is the first time I added Mengwu Shiwei to the article, and immediately it's reverted, saying Shiwei is not close related to Mongols, ancestors of whom are a branch of Shiwei;
The second time I told them Mengwu Shiwei is the very branch who became Mongols' ancestors, it's reverted because of no occurences in Mongolian history books;
The third time I told them it's not important whether in their history book, the focal point is Mengwu Shiwei is a part of history of Mongolia (anyway this is NOT a History books of Mongolia article), it's reverted because of lack of "references and more info";
The fourth time when I tried to find some citations, I was threatened by Dave1185, saying what I did to the article History of Mongolia are "disruptive edits"; any edits which is "deemed to be a vandalism edit" by him/them, I'll be blocked. I was shocked: what I did to History of Mongolia has been deemed to be vandalism?! I do no longer dare do edits in History of Mongolia as even a discussion-edit is "deemed" as "disruptive edits", how can I ensure what I will contribute is not deemed as "disruptive edits"? And how can I ensure I'll not be blocked with another edit? --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]