In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, 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: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 23:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC).
This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
The two users (and more) are constantly pushing for CPOV often against community consensus or out of their own unilateral (but coordinated) initiatives on disputed articles.
This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.
I request that user:Jiejunkong and user:Assault11 be banned from POV & name disputing at all Korea-related historical articles. user:Assault11 already had his own Rfc but it came out as an indecisive result at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Assault11 (although most users agreed that he was disruptive & that something should be done about it).
I think that it's legitimate to list both Jiejunkong and Assault11 b/c Assault11 was already confirmed to be disruptive from last Rfc. I'm suggesting that an action be derived from the last Rfc along with this one.
{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}
Now, let's take a step b/c you might misunderstand the situation through your stereotypical perceptions. These guys have created a lot of naming disputes -mainly ethnic. There is a movement among Chinese historians who claim that Korea is really part of Chinese culture & history, and Goguryeo and Balhae have come to be the main focus of the movement in "making them" Chinese. This really didn't happen until recently - maybe ~ 25 years since when it first began to be noticed & ~10 years since it became a well known dispute. Not knowing that this is really a recent push by the Chinese government-sponsored historian studies, you editors who take pride in being "neutral" might be like, "hmm... 2 sides... Equal representation!" Really, if you don't know much about East Asian history, I recommend that you don't take lead in making conclusions. The fact is, the CPOV on this topic is not widely accepted - i.e. even Britannica defines Silla as a Korean kingdom[1].
(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.) Here are all the bad habits that they have.
(02:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC))
Jiejunkong also recently violated WP:CANVASS here. 04:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
(provide diffs and links)
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
Considering your view on the whole subject, and considering your very first comment in Wikipedia, you don't have much to say.
We can't regard Jiejunkong as a legible editor. Namecalling me as an "ultranationalist" is a personal attack. Good friend100 04:12, 14 July 2007 (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. 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.}
It is certified that User:Jiejunkong and User:Assault11 are unrelated, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Jiejunkong filed by User:Wikimachine. Therefore, this blatant rule-breaking RFC should be cancelled. It violated the basic RFC rule "This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. ", see the beginning section of this page for details.--Jiejunkong 07:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Formal Reply about the invalidity of the RFC It is important to note that User:Wikimachine violates the RFC rule "This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. " According to the rule, this RFC must be immediately deleted because User:Wikimachine misidentified User:Assault11 with me and filed the RFC against two users. He filed a sock puppet report against User:Assault11 and me yesterday. And based on his personal belief, he thinks he is right. However, User:Assault11 is a hybrid of Han Chinese, Manchu and Mongol, while I am Han Chinese only. We represent different ethnic groups in the same region for the same opinion that calling us as people from "Manchuria" ("Manchurian") is unacceptable. User:Wikimachine's RFC is thus invalid.--Jiejunkong 21:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Also I have no contact with User:Assault11 except in en.wikipedia. I don't know his zh.wikipedia ID and I don't know where his physical presence is. His ethnic background is in his own post, and I believe his self-introduction is true because he shows consistent point of views in Manchu and Mongol related articles.--Jiejunkong 22:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Response on the disputations As a local resident of Northeastern China area, which is historically Manchuria (1635--1945) and Mohe-Jurchen (prior to 1635), I have all the editing right to inspect the related wikiarticles to correct geographic and historical errors. These articles include Goguryeo, Balhae, Mohe, Liao Dynasty, Jurchen Jin Dynasty, Ming Dynasty, Qing Dynasty, Manchuria, Manchukuo, Northeast China, etc.
User:Wikimachine, User:Cydevil38 and User:Good friend100 form a side representing ultra Korean nationalist's POV, including ignoring reliable historical records like Twenty-Four Histories and/or Samguk Sagi, citing ultra-nationalistic websites like mygoguryeo.com as sources in their writeup, violating WP:NCGN by forcing non-modern names in purely geographic contexts, etc. In particular, these ultranationalists force many local residents of Northeast China to call their hometown an expired name in geographic context subject to WP:NCGN. This is unacceptable and considered as an intentional insult by many local residents including me, User:Assault11 and User:Naus. In a nutshell, we represent the local residents of ethnic Han Chinese and Manchu Chinese people, who don't accept the intentional Korean naming of "Manchuria" in any purely geographic context subject to WP:NCGN and in any anachronistic context where Manchuria is a misnomer. Also based on reliable canonical history records, I also do not accept the ultranationalists' claim that Goguryeo and Balhae are purely proto-Korean historical entities. In contrast, the two entities are both proto-Korean and proto-Manchu.--Jiejunkong 19:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
In summary, my stand is consistent with my above claim from the beginning to the end. My point of view has a head-on clash with mygoguryeo.com fans User:Wikimachine, User:Cydevil38 and User:Good friend100, but my point of view is based on reliable history records and wikipolicies (I also quote original wikipolicy texts in discussions. This is not like User:Wikimachine, User:Cydevil38 and User:Good friend100, who refuse to discuss based on original wikipolicy text even upon urgent requests). I also disagree with a Taiwanese administrator User:Nlu in en.wikipedia on his personal conclusion that "Manchuria" is not an insult to most local residents if used in modern context. User:Nlu has never been to the Northeastern China area and the subtle situations between Taiwanese and mainland Chinese prevent him from being a neutral third party.--Jiejunkong 19:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I hate liars. The major problem of liars is that they can never make their sentences consistent. In this case, I don't revoke my challenge against User:Cydevil38 because he clearly shows inconsistency in his behavior. Let me copy the physical proofs here to diagnose his "amnesia":
Technical reply User:Cydevil38 immediately stamped "Original research" on the image "Image:Goguryeo-Relations-inEnglish.jpg". But in the corresponding talk page Image_talk:Goguryeo-Relations-inEnglish.jpg, he disappeared without trying to clarify his reasons. This is completely irresponsible. In the talk page, all technical proofs are canonical history records used by professionals (according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, the canonical history records are reliable because they are authoritative sources. User:Cydevil38, User:Wikimachine and User:Good friend100 rejected the reliable sources even for now. This is rule breaking because by this strategy they can block any reliable source at their free will). As a group of complete amateurs of the history and geography topics, User:Cydevil38, User:Wikimachine and User:Good friend100 either rely on no sources at all, or rely on unfiltered web search (which includes many factual errors in search results). They are not qualified to judge original research in the topics being disputed.--Jiejunkong 23:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
As "racial attack" is mentioned by a Korean "outside view", I need to make it clear that I have never made any racial comment against anybody. In contrast, I think "Manchurian" is a racial slur against local residents of Northeast China, and that's reason why I feel offended.--Jiejunkong 19:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
User:Cydevil38 throws in a Wikipedia:Canvassing charge today. Actually, let's look at User:Wikimachine's call for help in the outside reviewer User_talk:Edene's talk page. And the list goes on: User talk:Odst, User talk:Nlu, User talk:Visviva, User talk:WangKon936, and even Template talk:History of Manchuria. We immediately know that who is canvassing.--Jiejunkong 04:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
BTW, User:Assault11 is also listed as the target in the ill-formed RFC, so I don't think my comments about this RFC on his talk page are classified as canvassing. Except Assault11's talk page and my own talk page, I have never discussed this RFC elsewhere. User:Cydevil38 is randomly citing wikirules, but fails to discuss based on original wikirule texts again. Such random rule citing is awful, in particular he then runs away and leaves the cited rule rotten there. It is almost like a denial-of-service strategy, which makes communication impossible.--Jiejunkong 05:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
A Japanese user had a look at User talk:Assault11 and then put his own POV (which is not my POV at all) by saying "C-guy" is a trouble term. Actually, I was imitating Hong Kong media by using letters to avoid trouble. The so-called 字母男星,字母女星 are some terms like "Mr.X, Ms.Y" to avoid trouble in entertainment news. Unless the involved person explicitly says he/she wants to be mentioned by name, there is no need to mention the name directly to get yourself into trouble. The current contents of User talk:Assault11 are about User:Wikimachine's RFC against Assault11 and me. Except User:Wikimachine's user name, I have intentionally avoided mentioning other RFC participants' names directly. It has nothing to do with derogation or whatever. --Jiejunkong 08:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Technical reply to User:Mr. Killigan's view
Users who endorse this summary:
:::Again, this is another communication problem. Either you didn't read my outside comment or you don't understand what you are saying. Both your claims are easily refuted.
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.
I looked into articles that have been edited by Jiejunkong. He is a great contributor to Chinese history and China-related articles. The current problem is very simple: choose between Manchuria and Northeastern China in historical articles. Korean users generally prefer Manchuria, while Chinese users support Northeastern China.
I read through many talk pages (including user talk). The only reason Jiejunkong and other users claims is that the name Manchuria is historical term that is not used anymore. (He describes the term "expired" above) However, the term Manchuria is widely used in English-speaking countries. Maybe Jiejunkong as a Chinese living in China doesn't realize which word is preferred by English-speaking population.
I live in Toronto (Ontario, Canada) where more than 1 of 10 people are Chinese. I study at University of Waterloo, where nearly half of students are Chinese. The word Manchuria is very common in fact and many Chinese uses Manchuria to describe where they come from. Many English dictionaries also simply define Manchuria a general term describing northeastern region of China, not a historical term. I do understand how the name that many Chinese people uses in China is not preferred over to describe a region in China. However, this is English Wikipedia and by Wikipedia naming convention, the name Manchuria should be chosen.
It is not highly important, in my opinion, to decide which word to use, but to stop this dispute I would support Wikimachine. In addition, many similar disputes have been already concluded to choose Manchuria.
Users who endorse this summary:
I have limited my editing to Goguryeo. I was surprised to read above that the user in question has some legitimate and/or helpful edits. From my point of view the user in question and several others are here at Wikipedia to cause disruptions. The user in question and several others have carelessly used Goguryeo and Talk:Goguryeo as their playground, inserting and re-inserting original research and other bizarre material that is inappropriate for an encyclopædia project. On the Goguryeo talk page they engage in race baiting, trolling, flaming, personal attacks, and making ridiculous demands of other editors. WP:Civil is foreign to the editor in question. More specifically, the editor in question and others engaged in a highly unseemly and potentially libelous discussion about a prominent Goguryeo scholar in the USA and have come dangerously close to slandering that individual (see 'Prominent?' on the talk page). May I also remind anyone who may not be aware that the antics at the Goguryeo article have been the subject of international media coverage -- the user in question and others are partly responsible for causing worldwide damage to the reputation of this laudable encyclopædia project. How can anyone see this user as anything but hostile toward the purpose and aims of Wikipedia? Mumun 無文 12:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
I haven't participated in any of the discussions, but reading this RfC seems to me like the discussion was pretty loaded with nationalism and POV.
What seems to be the major problem is the lack of understanding between the two sides. I read somewhere that Jiejunkong made good contributions to Chinese history overall, but some of his edits seems to have aggravated Cydevil38 and Wikimachine.
Cydevil38, Wikimachine, and their party are obviously angry with the Chinese editors (labeling them CPOV), and I think the Chinese side has some pretty rough editing. I really don't think anybody else has a problem with the word "Manchuria". The reason to use "Northeast China" is pretty weak and there isn't much logic behind it.
Furthermore, this side has been having a discussion here, and they apparently degrade Cydevil38 as "C-guy". That discussion is filled with personal attacks.
The Korean side doesn't have a very clean record either. User:Good friend100 has a number of blocks (looking at his talk page) because of edit warring, and Cydevil38 has not been too civil either.
However, the Chinese side has many problems, and their aggressivness causes these conflicts. "Manchuria" is the most commonly used word and its a standard word for describing te region. Also, in Goguryeo, writing sections like "Political connections between Goguryeo and the Chinese Central Plains Dynasties" is not helpful. Another problem is the lack of the knowledge of english and this creates communication problems hugely. The Chinese side also claims that the name "Goguryeo-China Wars" sounds like it is Goguryeo vs. China, while Goguryeo "could be Chinese so this title is wrong". Its simply a viewpoint from China that Goguryeo is Chinese. In my knowledge of this history, most historians agree that Goguryeo is Korean. The problem stems from the Chinese editors' insistence that everybody sees things in their eyes. If others agree that something is something, it is, and trying to turn that agreement forcefully will create problems. The Chinese side tried to rename Template talk:History of Manchuria into "Template of Northeastern China" on te basis that "Manchuria" is "offensive to Chinese people". This is obviously a biased viewpoint from the Chinese viewpoint.
Even though the Chinese side editors have made many wrongs, Korean editors and others have responded in an inappropiate way, like edit-warring and joining into a heated argument with name calling and accusing. If there is an obvious problem, then report it and leave it alone. There is no need to express your personal viewpoint of the editor you reported. This isn't going to solve anything, and the administrator that looks into this is not going to approve both sides in their conduct, nor will he/she give any more advice than to stop arguing and reach a compromise, which you guys have failed to do. Both sides are in a deep hole and until one side stops causing a chaos, this fight will never end. Mr. Killigan 05:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
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.
