Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Mark Kim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Formalities

Just as a formality, I think Crossmr needs to sign under the "Users certifying the basis for this dispute". Just bringing it to your attention as any RFC does need 2 signatories. Sasquatch t|c 18:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Done, unfortunately one of the users which was involved with him a lot in the past, is no longer active (RadioKirk). But there is no shortage of users who've tried to fix the behaviour.--Crossmr 18:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view: A305w (talk · contribs)

After looking through A305w's edit history, I can't see any past communications between him and Kiand that would explain his rant, nor does he provide any diffs to sustain his allegations. I also don't see how that rant has any relation to this RFC. All he basically says is he doesn't like Kiand and therefore this RFC is bad.--Atlan (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The rfc is not about Kiand it's about Mark Kim. I think the rant ashould be removed as totally irrelavent. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree. If this RFC was about a dispute between Kiand and Mark Kim and that was all it might be relevant in a minor way, but Mark Kim's behaviour is not limited to his interactions with Kiand.--Crossmr 15:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I've also not got a clue what A305w is refering to, looking through his edit history I can see only twice theres been any form of contact. --Kiand 07:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Just pointing out that you have a habit of bending the rules and getting away with it (personal attacks, etc) yet when someone else does it to you, you get upset. It's the kind of behavior that makes Wikipedia look bad. You are not the only one that does this, but someone has to put a stop to it.
If you'd like to prove these accusations, there's a place for it. This is not it. This might be, if you so wish. --Kiand 17:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
As I pointed out, if this were simply all about a dispute between Kiand and Mark Kim that would be relevant, but this is about a dispute between Mark Kim and several editors. Mark Kim's behaviour with Kiand wasn't out of the ordinary or unusual compared to the other editors he's attacked, so his behaviour isn't particularly noteworthy in the grand scheme of this issue. If you feel his behaviour is inappropriate please feel free to provide diffs and concerns in a more appropriate venue.--Crossmr 01:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
It may or may not be relevant but I wanted to raise the issue. I won't start any RFC because Kiand has a couple of admins who condone his behavior and I'll be banned. Listen, I've talked with Kiand on IRC a few times and he is a nice enough guy. His behavior here is at issue. I just wanted to raise the question, I did and it's done now. I dont wish to hijack this RFC anymore. A305w 00:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A305w's comment

{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.}

Kiand is someone who likes to throw his weight around despite the fact he is not an admin. He wont break the rules but he'll bend them almost to the breaking point. Kiand likes sticking his nose where it doesn't belong: SkyOS then complains to admins when people tell him he's wrong.

Kiand is an example of all that is bad about Wikipedia: The childish, petty bickering, the arrogance, the stupidity, that causes good people to leave and places like Wikitruth to spring up. Someone has to stop Kiand and his ilk. I urge a ban on Kiand. A305w 13:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see this has nothing to do with this rfc. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to agree, the issue here is Mark Kim's behaviour with many many editors and many articles.--Crossmr 14:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing some edits

I'll go through this, but I want to address each one before I remove them.

  1. [1] I feel this is close enough, because what he labels vandalism, isn't always vandalism. Anyone who disagrees with his position is a vandal. So while Mark Kim may say vandalism, many other editors simply see a content dispute.
  2. [2]. You don't own your talk page. You are given some latitude with your user page and talk page, however you do not own them. You do not get to control who can leave you what message. This is given as evidence of his early anti-social behaviour. We all know that he takes quick offense to the most innocuous comments.
  3. [3] While the incident may have been a year ago, it just continues to demonstrate his behaviour. Individual incidents are not the problem here, its how he handles them. He had a long debate with one or more users which wasn't exactly civil over that issue.
  4. These 2 diffs are relevant because it shows a user indicating that he is or was trying to own that article. This is part of the issue with his behaviour. [4]. His responses demonstrate his willingness to ignore community standards and do whatever he thinks is right. It also demonstrates his continually calling any question of his behaviour as "harsh criticism", as well as his double standard where he says he doesn't want to edit war, yet has threatened it to get his way in an article [5].
  5. [6] This just demonstrates his on-going attempts to control everything around him. It speaks to the fact that the behaviour is long term.
  6. [7] Don't make me do this again, is not a stern request. It can be said much more civily.
  7. [8] I didn't catch that this one was a self-revert, I'll remove that one.
  8. [9] Part of his problem is owning articles. So diffs showing that behaviour are well on target. If there is a real object to be raised here, do so.
  9. [10]. As a single edit summary by an editor, this is not an issue. As part of the larger package that is Mark Kim, it just gives more examples of the way he behaves.
  10. [11] Some of his incivility appeared to have subsided as well. I'm not ready to say he's over that particular hang-up.

--Crossmr 20:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response.
  1. Hm. It's not a very good diff, however. Especially being your first and showcased piece of evidence. Taken autonomously, people new to this page might not understand what's wrong with this statement.
  2. This is the only real point I'd like to debate you on, but I'll leave it for another day. :) Suffice to say, due to extenuating issues, this point is not very focused on the core issue.
  3. I think you should cover the WP:NOTCENSORED issue in more detail. You might want to read User talk:Theresa knott/archive15#Honestly (Warning, Strong Language Examples) if you haven't already. He has stopped removing comments with profanity without prejudice, so this shouldn't be your focus if you bring it up. Focus on how he first decides for himself howe Wikipedia should be run and and tries to make it manifiest, then "[hates people] for the rest of [his] life" when they reprimand him for ignoring policies.
  4. This was just a focus issue. I thought there was too much noise in that diff to properly make you point to new readers.
  5. See point 2.
  6. Yes, it could be more civil, but you called it an threat which implies breech of WP:PA. This is not the case. Perhaps a rewording of your summary? Even if it is reworded, it seems like an extremely minor example. There are better diffs.
  7. I remove comments for talk pages. A lot. Mostly for clear violations of WP:TALK, however. :D His removal of this comment does seem out of line, but is not a very clear example of ownership behaviour. Again, there are better diffs. Stay on target. :)
  8. This is "evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute". Calling someone's actions "nuttiness" is not a good platform for assistance (though nuttiness it may be). It's not a good example of someone reaching out to Kim.
  9. I agree, but see point 3.
If you disagree with any of my strikeouts after this, feel free to get rid of them. –Gunslinger47 21:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration?

Mark seems to disregard anything the community says. With all due respect, Mark is nothing more than a zealot; everything he says and does is right and nobody should dare contest them. An RfC is a tool for community feedback; it's therefor useless if one of the parties has no regard to that. The only way out of this with that mind is arbitration. — Selmo (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Kim has stated he has left

Following an impending arbitration case set up by Selmo, Mark Kim has opted to leave the project ([12]). That's really too bad, because he did good editing work, as long as it didn't require him to communicate with other users. Since Wikipedia is a collaborative project, maybe it's for the best.--Atlan (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright... well I guess we can close this RFC for now then... Sasquatch t|c 02:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually "left" is an incorrect statement. He's "closed" his account, and is simply editing as the IP associated with it, so he's certainly not stopped editing wikipedia.--Crossmr 04:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
If that is the case, then you'll simply need to identify the IP socks, file a checkuser request, and reopen this RfC if it becomes necessary. Until then, the issue seems to be moot. —ptk✰fgs 00:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
CU wouldn't take it, it would be marked "obvious". For something as obvious as using identical language in edit summaries, editing same language, editing users talk page, they wouldn't bother, I've tried to file those in the past.--Crossmr 02:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally I'm not convinced, actually, and I think it's another user. But seriously, let's just let this one burn out for now, ok? —ptk✰fgs 06:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
It looks blatently obvious to me. The IP edits the same articles, and removed the rfc notice from Mark Kim's userpage.When I warned the IP not to do that, he switches to a different IP and removes my warning then goes on to edit a page that Mark Kim had edited in the past.Highly unlikely that a different user would do that. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry but I'm adios

Sorry but after 2 years, I'm voluntarily adios. The fact that you got involved in a conspiracy to place me under arbitration is the last straw. Therefore go to another editor if you want various articles to be edited. I don't have any time to waste with Wikipedia anymore. I leave Wikipedia with this one warning: there will be even more fragile editors like myself and soon there will be opposition to Wikipedia's oppresive rules that y'all will have to think things. I don't care about those articles anymore and nobody cared about my edits anyway. Sorry, but I'm voluntarily finished here. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 12:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)