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 with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. 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: 15:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 14:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC).

• Assault11 (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Disruptive editing at template:History of Manchuria

Desired outcome

Not sure yet.

Description

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)[reply]

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. [23]
2. [24]
3. [25]
4. [26]
5. [27]

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. NPOV
2. Wikipedia:Naming conventions

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. Discussion at talk page[28][29]
2. Request for RfC History and Geography[30][31]
3. Request for Third Opinion[32][33][34]
4. Request for Mediation[35]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Cydevil38 15:21, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. With the reservation that I don't believe that this is a matter with just a single party -- although Assault11's conduct is probably the most culpable in this messy dispute. --Nlu (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. I got an e-mail from Cydevil38 notifying me of this Rfc. I myself took part in the dispute, and I agree w/ what Cydevil38 has to say. Wikimachine 00:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. I'm displeased with Assault's reluctance to compromise. Good friend100 11:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. I can understand what you mean, i am partially agree with what you said above, but i don't know how to solve the problem. I was occasionally involved in revert edit war with him but now i prefer focusing my effort on working on other articles related with that part of Asia so as to bring significant contribution instated of fruitless revert edit war.Whlee 12:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. By principle, changes by one person, without the input or considersations from others, is a practice we should discourage here on wiki. We should dispassionately evaluate Assault's behavior and see if it's been consistant with behavior that is fair. WangKon936 17:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. I agree that there is a problem, and the behavior represented by Assault11 is not assisiting in comfortable editing environment. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

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. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{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:

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. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Disputes have always existed between Assault11 (talk · contribs) & Cydevil38 (talk · contribs) (formerly Cydevil (talk · contribs)) causing disruption all over the place. So it is inconceivable to review one without reviewing the other. This RfC only faults Assault11, but BOTH editors have had spurs of incivility and failure to cooperate, as this edit by Cydevil shows. I think it is best to force them both to pursue WP:DR.

The biggest disputes have always stemmed from Talk:Goguryeo, although there are many related articles. And we have an ongoing RfM at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Goguryeo to cover that, albeit currently put on hold. I believe we first need to force them to go back to this ongoing mediation rather than pursue the other peripheral issues.Removed, as the RfM is now closed.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Endroit 16:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Cydevil was a little more active in contacting admins and trying for mediation, but both users were at fault. I'd have to say I agree with this one. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 19:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{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:

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.