Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Assault11
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Disruptive editing: After an extensive edit war on Goguryeo, one issue being whether or not template:History of China should be included in the article, a compromise was reached by majority of concerned editors to create a template:History of Manchuria in its stead.[1] Due to this consensus, the template was created. This is the original version, titled "History of Manchuria": [2][3] Then Assault11 started adding Dongbei, the Chinese name for Northeast China. This has caused contentions with User:Whlee, so AQu01rius proposed a compromise.[4] Assault11 rejected this compromise, and again made a slightly modified version, replacing Dongbei with its English name, Northeast China.[5] Then he kept edit warring to keep his preffered version, until he made a further POV version that replaced Manchuria with Northeast China as the primary definition.[6] He then again started reverting the template to this version[7] that entirely replaces Manchuria with Northeast China until a protection was set in place with this version.[8] After unprotection, Assault11 once again kept changing the version to his preferred version that entirely replaces Manchuria with Northeast China.[9] After some edit warring with multiple users, User:Nlu has proposed this compromise[10] addressing concerns of another user. Then Assault11 started reverting this to this version[11], claiming that the most common name is Northeast China.
Myself and many other users before me have pointed out that Manchuria is the most common usage in the English language and Northeast China is a sinocentric(Chinese POV) term. Assault11 continued to deny this, so I filed a RfC on this matter.[12] It was able to get only one RfC from an editor who's not involved, which was in favor of using Manchuria.[13] Assault11 continued to argue against this, and kept reverting the template to his preferred version.[14] So in hopes of getting more outside opinions involved, and progressing through the dispute resolution process, I requested a Wikipedia:Third Opinion.[15] This time, this dispute was able to get more attention from outside editors, four new editors not involved in the dispute providing their third opinions.[16][17] Again, all four editors favored Manchuria. Meanwhile, a survey also took place, and the majority consensus was in favor of Manchuria.[18] Still, after both Third Opinion and the survey weighing in for Manchuria, Assault11 continued to revert to his preferred version.[19] Then, I filed for a mediation[20], and notified Assault11 on his talkpage.[21] Even after personal notification, Assault11 ignored the request for mediation and went on reverting the template to his preferred version.[22] Cydevil38 15:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
—
Comments on Endroit's "Outside View":
- I admit to my previous faults and I've refrained from such behavior for quite some time, but nonetheless, I will not oppose another RfC User Conduct on myself. However, it should be noted that Endroit is not entirely "innocent" either, and in fact my uncivil response that he pointed out was in reaction to what I believe to be WP:POV-PUSH on his part. And I contend whether Endroit's views qualifies as a "Outside View", since he is very much directly involved in the dispute that he broached. Cydevil38 17:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Correction: I have not been involved with this particular RfC nor Template talk:History of Manchuria, so I am commenting as an outsider.--Endroit 17:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Correction: Not only are you directly involved at Goguryeo, the disputed article where my problematic behavior is concerned, you were also directly involved in the consensus that was lead to the creation of this template[23], and your comments are listed on the template's talk page.[24] While those comments were made at talk:Goguryeo, they were moved to template talk:History of Manchuria as those comments were pertinent to the template. Again, I don't mind a RfC User Conduct on myself. Why don't you go ahead. Cydevil38 17:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- So it is clear that I don't support Assault11's position there, if you read my posts there. And neither do I support yours, Cydevil. I couldn't care less what this template is called, so there, I'm not involved.--Endroit 17:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- To say that you were not invovled when you were involved in the process of creating the template, and you have provided comments that contradict Assault11's position that ended up in the template talk page is contentious. And that you "couldn't care less" what the template is called, when in fact you clearly provided an opposing view to Assault11's position, is yet another evidence to your general anti-Korea WP:POV-PUSH, which was the cause of my uncivil response in the past. I certainly have a lot to say about you, but I'll reserve this for a future opportunity under more appropriate circumstances. Cydevil38 18:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Anti-Korea? Mind you the dispute over at Template: History of Manchuria has nothing to do with the Korean peninsula. It should also be noted that I refrained from participating in the mediation process due to time restraints (see my talk page). Assault11 18:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Cydevil/Cydevil38 and Assault11 are just bickering over the naming of the template. Like I said, I don't care what it's called. When you two are ready to come back to the discussion on the other more important issues at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Goguryeo, you are welcome to do so. Your filing of numerous RfC's and revert-warring outside of the current RfM is a WP:POINT violation, if you ask me.... and that goes for the both of you, Cydevil/Cydevil38 & Assault11.--Endroit 18:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- To say that you were not invovled when you were involved in the process of creating the template, and you have provided comments that contradict Assault11's position that ended up in the template talk page is contentious. And that you "couldn't care less" what the template is called, when in fact you clearly provided an opposing view to Assault11's position, is yet another evidence to your general anti-Korea WP:POV-PUSH, which was the cause of my uncivil response in the past. I certainly have a lot to say about you, but I'll reserve this for a future opportunity under more appropriate circumstances. Cydevil38 18:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- So it is clear that I don't support Assault11's position there, if you read my posts there. And neither do I support yours, Cydevil. I couldn't care less what this template is called, so there, I'm not involved.--Endroit 17:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Correction: Not only are you directly involved at Goguryeo, the disputed article where my problematic behavior is concerned, you were also directly involved in the consensus that was lead to the creation of this template[23], and your comments are listed on the template's talk page.[24] While those comments were made at talk:Goguryeo, they were moved to template talk:History of Manchuria as those comments were pertinent to the template. Again, I don't mind a RfC User Conduct on myself. Why don't you go ahead. Cydevil38 17:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Correction: I have not been involved with this particular RfC nor Template talk:History of Manchuria, so I am commenting as an outsider.--Endroit 17:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
For the concerned, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Goguryeo is on hold and there is no discussion going on there. In fact, many of the initial issues that lead to the mediation were resolved by User:Nlu's informal mediation. Much of the current discussion is going on at talk:Goguryeo with new issues raised, and I'm very actively participating in the discussion. The reason I am filing those RfCs apart from the mediation is to get some outside opinions on new disputes that previously didn't follow the dispute resolution process. And please forgive my quarrel with Endroit - while this user is trying to portray himself as a neutral party, he has been very actively pursuing me, repeatedly accusing me of sockpuppetry and the like, the latest being this one.[25] And my final word on this particular quarrel - I feel that it is inconceivable to review my case without reviewing Endroit's case, because his behavior was a significant factor in my past incivility. Cydevil38 19:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Since neither of us can know for sure, I requested User:Daniel to comment here on behalf of the Mediation Committee, regarding the status of the existing RfM in question. I myself have laid out the existing issues in RfM including some new ones. (Naming of the templates is not one of them.) You, Cydevil/Cydevil38, however have only laid out the bare minimum old issues (and none of the new ones), in what I percieve to be an attempt to end the RfM prematurely. We'll see if they pick up either of our issues at RfM.
- Regarding your peripheral RfC's, I really think they are unwarranted, extra-curricular activites outside of the RfM. Some of those issues should have been brought up in the existing RfM first. In any case, it is my desire to revive the existing RfM first, but we'll see what happens.--Endroit 20:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have been most active in the Rfm - other than the admins who run it. And currently the Rfm is dead b/c nobody's participating. What Cydevil38 has to say is true. Nlu resolved most of the problems. (Wikimachine 00:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC))
- I am inclined to close the mediation, per the comments above about Nlu's fantastic work previous. The discussion has stalled, and the issues seem to be becoming stale. This is in addition to the fact that a lot of the people who were involved in the mediation have either a) left the dispute or b) are inactive on Wikipedia.
- I'm tempted to close this mediation as stale, as I believe it would take too much effort to get it back off the ground again with the current party and issue list. However, if you want to have a second go with a fresh case, a new list of parties that are the disputants (and not a bunch of people who have withdrawn from the dispute), and a refreshed list of issues rather than some old, possibly-stale ones, that'd be fine.
- If you do want to do this, just note below, and I'll close it out. Then, if you wish, you can refile another RfM (Goguryeo 2), and we can make sure it works (public mediation, we'll get straight into it, etc.). I'd be happy to take this by myself (Armedblowfish has been having problems with an autoblock, which is contributing to the delays), if you guys like.
- If there's one person who believes the RfM presently is stale, the issues are old, trhe party list not representative of the current disputants, etc., then I'll do the above. The option to refile is with you. Daniel 02:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Upon discussion with my chair and other members of the Committee, I have gone ahead and closed this, per the reasoning above. I welcome you to file a fresh request, with the new party list and issue list, if you wish. My apologies for the misfire with this attempt at mediation, which appears to have been doomed from the start per some of the comments above. Daniel 07:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have been most active in the Rfm - other than the admins who run it. And currently the Rfm is dead b/c nobody's participating. What Cydevil38 has to say is true. Nlu resolved most of the problems. (Wikimachine 00:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC))
Endroit, it should be noted that Assault11 is the one making it difficult to come to a compromise on this article and List of tributaries of Imperial China. Other editors have repeatedly asked him what he has wanted and what he thinks would be a good compromise, but he fails to respond and simply wants his own version.
If you would even care to warn Assault, at least read his comments on the talk pages and you will see his rudeness and his stubborness. Agreeing with Cydevil, I think you should stop your biased view. Its sad how you attack Cydevil, but when CPOV editors say that "Gaogouli is ours, bitch" or "this place is for Korean ethnocentrists" or "Korean giant circlejerk", you don't even warn them. Or is that "I'm not part of the discussion" excuse again? Stop the bias, Endroit.
To Assault11, the History of Manchuria template is about Korea too, thats why its at the Goguryeo article. If you still have a viewpoint that Goguryeo is a pure Chinese kingdom, throw it away at Wikipedia.
To Cydevil, you should cut the aggressiveness against the other editors, saying "fuck" is not going to help bring consensus in any way. Good friend100 03:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
