Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jiejunkong

I thought that Goodfriend100 conceded that mygoguryeo.com was unreliable. (Wikimachine 01:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC))

Outside view: neutrality concern
My remark is that a student in University of Waterloo is not necessary a westerner. He/she could be a foreign student from elsewhere. And his/her country of origin can be identified by his/her wikirecords.--Jiejunkong 05:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It is confirmed at the user's talk page that the user is a Korean student in University of Waterloo.--Jiejunkong 19:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned in my talk page, I don't need to be non-Korean or non-Chiense. It can be written by any "users not directly involved with the dispute."


 * I have never said that Korean or Chinese cannot write outside view. What I want to point out is the neutrality concern, as the title shows.--Jiejunkong 06:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, another outside review added today is also by a Korean POV. He forgot that I contributed a reliably sourced diagram and literal explanations which are similar to and Image talk:Goguryeo-Relations-inEnglish.jpg to the article Goguryeo, but the triad User:Cydevil38, User:Good friend100 killed the reliable sources with no valid reason and refused to discuss the reliable sources based on wikipolicies. Amongst Koreans, only User:Komdori and User:Whlee showed good faith in the reliably sourced contents. User:Mumun did not show objective attitude in the related talk. --Jiejunkong 19:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Politics
Politics is what all this RFC is about. This RFC is abused as a political weapon for settlement of disputes. We have been trying hard to use Wikipedia rules to work out disputes, but Wikimachine is unwilling to do that nor is he interested in hard facts presented to him, only insisting that we stop participation in the editing process because of differing views. Many times he used threats of actions such as this in an attempt to stop editors from legitimate edits, which are fully compliant with wikipedia policies, and fully backup with reliable sources. Holding people as political hostages is not how to deal with differing views. I think Wikipedia being an open encyclopedic system, does not encourage that. Wiki Pokemon 21:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have more feelings than your remarks. This is sort of like Mario Puzo's Godfather series.  User:Wikimachine is the de facto "lawyer" Tom Hagen, while the user led with the letter "C" is the capo Clemenza, and the user led with letter "G" is another capo Tessio.  The capos whack you and then the lawyer files lawsuits against you.  With the existence of the triad, you just cannot add or change any article/template "belong to their turf".  Meanwhile the Corleones jump out and accuse you of "contributing nothing to the articles" because you've got no chance facing the capos and the lawyer.--Jiejunkong 04:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So far User:Cydevil38 has stalked me for every edit I've made to Goguryeo and Manchuria related articles. The denial-of-service strategy he has used is: (1) Randomly cites a wikirule, which could already be changed to another personal definition, e.g., reliable sources are defined as non-Chinese language sources in Goguryeo related articles according to him, and citing Chinese language sources becomes "Original Research"; So far nobody knows how can he create these conclusions from Reliable Sources and Verifiability; (2) Then you have to discuss the referred wikirules with him; (3) Then he either offers random comments without referring to the original wikirule texts, or simply runs away; (4) Then we stuck in arguing about wikirules and the infinite loop goes on.--Jiejunkong 06:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

rethink this situation
Stop teasing the user. It seems that Jiejunkong becomes quite upset and is easily provoked. The user appears to think that there is a group of editors who are in league against him/her. If there are any editors who bear ill will toward Jiejunkong, please stop bugging the user. Try to place yourself in Jiejunkong's proverbial wikishoes. WP:CIVIL applies to all of us. If nobody bugs him/her, perhaps Jiejunkong will return to making positive contributions (somebody mentioned that the user has good edits).

I recommend that all of us actively attempt to defuse the current tense situation. In the interest of creating a positive atmosphere for editing at Goguryeo, we should all ignore and/or slow revert any bad behaviours by any editors. But we need to understand that the more we argue with Jiejunkong, the more disruptive s/he will be. We should realize that this user is an attention-seeker: one look at Jiejunkong's "contributions" shows that his/her behaviour has really devolved into nothing but malicious pestering, personal attacks, and trolling on article talk pages and user talk pages, and has often responded to the legitmate queries of editors with an bizarre sideshow of cacophonous and random straw-man arguments and irrelevant claptrap. Jiejunkong fills article talk pages with vitriolic race-baiting and personal attacks. Don't directly address the user unless one has to deliver a legitimate warning. This user is currently a drag on the resources and bandwidth of Wikipedia -- let's ignore baiting and bad stuff and slow revert, but only we must. Ignoring the user's bad behaviours except to revert and/or report it is justified because the user has consistently displayed an unwillingness to edit according to policies and guidelines and has displayed bad faith frequently. Mumun 無文 13:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Everyday I do comparable amount of readings and editings in zh.wikisource and somewhere else. Those readings and editings at somewhere else are also mostly related to zh.wikisource's reliable sources.  Whatever you say, don't leave Samguk Sagi at ko.wikisource as a nearly empty hole and call diligent wikilibrarians as "disruptive editors".  This is unfair to people who do real work and equally unfair to people who are busy at selling their baseless POVs in wikipedia.  You are too harsh to the former one, and too nice to the latter one.  BTW, I expect some users will input Samguk Sagi at ko.wikisource soon?--Jiejunkong 19:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, I looked through the entire argument, and its Jiejunkong that has an extremely negative attitude towards others. And what he does at the Chinese wikipedia has nothing to do with the english wikipedia because the Chinese wikipedia is obviously going to be written from a Chinese view. Mr. Killigan 03:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, you complained that you are confused by the word "technical". I am sorry I didn't make it clear that "technical" means presenting Reliable sources and Verifiable proofs in the arguments, and provide such proofs upon other user's requests for any presented contents.  "Technical" basically means "factual, nothing personal".  My response to you so far is purely technical, I don't carry any personal issues in the response.  Technically speaking, you have not considered canonical records like Twenty-Four Histories, which are similar to the Bible for east Asia history research.  By professional standards, it is an incomplete knowledge if these canonical records are missing.  (BTW, to reduce misunderstanding, Here the term "These" and "technical" referred to my response, not yours.  So far your response is not technical in my opinion.  Thus I have not used the term "technical" to refer to your responses.)  Finally, technical challenges are very common in technical disputations, please don't take technical challenges as ad hominem insults.  Examples of technical challenges include asking for verifiable sources; using the other party's POV to show absurdity in the quoted POV, or using other arguments to show the technical weakness in the quoted POV.  These shall not be confused with ad hominem attacks, for example, asking for verifiable sources is a common practice advocated by the wikipedia, it shall not be interpreted as a personal insult.--Jiejunkong 21:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody else uses the word "technical" and whether something is "technical" or not, wikipedia rules still apply. Stop trying to make your own rules that Wikipedia has "technical" responses and that nothing applies to them. Clearly, you don't understand Wikipedia rules and your lack of english shows that you don't understand what you are doing wrong. Mr. Killigan 01:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See Reliable sources, Verifiability and related wikipolicies for "technical" aspects of encyclopedia editing. Non-technical contents should go to uncyclopedia, not wikipedia.--Jiejunkong 20:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)