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: 12:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 01:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC).

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

Statement of the dispute[edit]

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 Taekwondo article has been the setting for a debate that has now been going on since November 2007 and has involved one particular user frequently engaging in disruptive conduct and uncivil behaviour. Granted, he is not alone in poor behaviour, but he has also been especially unwilling to compromise with other editors, hindering progress on the history portion of the article, and has finally (on 11 August) made his most unpleasant accusations to date ([1]), leading to this RfC.

Desired outcome

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.

That JJL would moderate his behaviour and take part in the compromise efforts that have been going on since November 2007 regarding the Taekwondo article, and be willing to work cooperatively with fellow editors.

Description

{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.}

On November 13, 2007, JJL made edits to the Taekwondo article which sparked disagreement between him and several editors. He expressed the view that Taekwondo is essentially "repackaged Karate" with a "Korean gloss", which led to an extended conflict with other editors, primarily melonbarmonster; neither of them behaved well, engaging in edit wars and personal attacks. In the early part of 2008, melonbarmonster was no longer involved, but Manacpowers had become involved and the conflict continued and is still going on.

Essentially, JJL wishes for his view to be given preference over others in the article, citing superiority of his sources, and for months we have been attempting to work with him on issues that he has raised regarding other sources. It is our view that the article should state each view neutrally, since there are good sources to support each. However, that is the issue from the perspective of the article itself, and such things can be resolved with discussion and appropriate give-and-take; the issue at hand here is the combative behavior of one particular editor throughout this process.

Evidence of disputed behavior

  1. [2] JJL tells Omnedon, "I congratulate you on adhering rigourously to your consistently low standards for references and documentation."
  2. [3] JJL responds to a compromise version of a paragraph which was made up of material from various other editors and he tells Omnedon, "If you edit it in...it's your source. You're going to need to take responsibility for your own edits." and this leads to several accusatory messages along the same line, as well as a contrary statement that users can not own sources according to Wikipedia policy.
  3. [4] JJL says to Huwmanbeing, "I don't understand what role you hope to play here."
  4. [5] JJL states to Manacpowers, "I had gotten the impression that you, Omnedon, and Huwmanbeing were arguing that no source could be so grossly unreliable as to be disallowed."
  5. [6] JJL sarcastically mis-characterizes an opposing view and describes it as a myth.

Applicable policies and guidelines

  1. WP:Civility
  2. WP:Assume good faith
  3. WP:No personal attacks
  4. WP:Gaming the system

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

  1. [7] Omnedon says, "Just to try to avoid a conflict here -- I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong, anyone) that most of us could agree that there was some foreign (non-Korean) influence in the development of Korean martial arts."
  2. [8] Huwmanbeing calls for calmness and politeness.
  3. [9] Nate1481 also calls for calmness.
  4. [10] Omnedon states, "JJL, the solution here can begin very simply: be less extreme, less hostile, and more open to compromise when it is offered."
  5. [11] Omnedon states, "You have consistently failed to abide by the basic rules listed at the top of the talk page: be polite, assume good faith, no personal attacks, be welcoming. To be fair, so have some of those who disagree with you. I would just suggest that everyone focus on the data and not engage in attacks."
  6. [12] Omnedon attempts to identify the points of disagreement to move things forward.
  7. [13] Huwmanbeing emphasizes that JJL's sources and beliefs are not under attack.

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

  1. [14] in which, after all of the above, Omnedon is accused of orchestrating an effort to thwart JJL's efforts by "using" various other editors, and Huwmanbeing is accused of being a "shill" brought in to "run interference", among other misinformation. The full section with responses is here.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Omnedon (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Huwmanbeing (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Nate1481(t/c) 13:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Manacpowers (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

Response[edit]

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.}

I'm leaving town Wed. afternoon and won't be back until Sunday. I'll also be gone Wed. through Sunday next week.

I'd like to first clarify that the language about TKD being "repackaged Karate" with a "Korean gloss" and about the "myth" of a pure Korean origin was used only on the talk page and was never proposed for inclusion in the article. I also offered copious evidence from WP:RS to support those statements; Dohrenwend says it plainly. See Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_4#Strong_sources, especially the blockquoted material there; note the origins of those opinions.

When I first made an edit to the historical development part of the TKD page, I rebuffed by two users who described my edits as "counter-edits" (Omnedon) and "unilateral edits" (melonbarmonster). I was advised not to make edits unless I first gained consensus and was told: "If you offer some references a discussion will ensue." (See Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_4#Japanese_origins.) That has been true...but it's rarely been a discussion on the sources. In reading what follows in the Talk archives, please note that I did not attempt to deny most claims of poor behaviour leveled at me; I attempted to stay focused on the WP:RS issues and stay above the mudslinging (some of which was later redacted by Manacpowers), e.g. Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_4#JJL_is_Japanese_Pushing_POV_Troll, [15], [16]. Please compare these to my "uncivil" comments above.

The problem is one of poorly sourced claims and well-sourced claims. Despite the portrayal of me as "uncivil", I have continually attempted to be constructive. Here's an example: Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_6#Moving_forward_.28part_2.29. I respond to Omnedon's request for a statement of my concerns. The response: A question from Nate1481, a rant from Manacpowers, support from Al Cole (76.227.133.168), etc., with Omnedon following up only with "some policy quotations" and Huwmanbeing playing his usual Greek chorus role for Omnedon. Here's another example; Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_4#Seeking_Consensus:_Staus_of_taekkyon_post-WWII. There are others, but they share the characteristic of an avoidance of the issues raised. The TKD Talk Archive #4 is littered with my efforts to provide detailed sources and to gain consensus: I initiated an RfC (see Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_4#RfC:_Origins_of_Taekwondo) and a mediation request (see Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_4#Mediation), and asked for help from RSN and the relevant WikiProject, for example. The problem remains, to my mind, obfuscation and evasion by those who lack viable sources to support their viewpoint.

It's clear that Omnedon is a productive editor across the site and I like to think that I am too. That's one reason I've been anxious to get mediation into this process. However, the response has been the ANI [17] and this current page. I view it all as a continued part of the dissembling that has been going on.

Well, I am weary of searching the archives. I'll respond to the specific points raised above under 'Evidence of disputed behavior':

1. I'll cop to some sarcasm here but this is in the context of a long attempt to discuss sources in which primary web sites are being set against peer-reviewed academic secondary sources and Wikipedia policies being ignored in the name of consensus.

2. This is as per Wikipedia:BURDEN#Burden_of_evidence, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." (emphasis added). Again, this evasion of actual discussion of the sources is a key problem.

3. It appears that User:Huwmanbeing is a non-martial-artist associate of User:Omnedon's who appeared at the latter's request and largely restates Omnedon's points for him. This happened at least once before I arrived on the scene (see Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_3#Questionable_edits). I was trying to say this in a polite way.

4. Again, this is in the context of a long attempt to discuss sources in which primary web sites are being set against peer-reviewed academic secondary sources and with a history of me being repeatedly described as a 'troll' by the person whom I was addressing (see examples above). If you read the material on the Talk page perhaps you'll see that I was not much exaggerating (e.g., see Talk:Taekwondo#Problematic_sources, where I again was seeking to engage in discussion in the presence of admins who had come to the page but was met again by stonewalling). This statement accurately describes how the matter appears on my end and it goes to the cross-purposes at which we end up speaking: Omnedon feels he's upholding WP:CONSENSUS and I feel I'm holding up WP:V. Each of us feels, I think, that the other is sacrificing too much of one in the name of the other. This is why I felt that mediation would be helpful (Omnedon also agreed to both mediation requests).

5. I didn't think this was sarcastic, and it's a position I have extensively and repeatedly documented. The notion of one hero being the only survivor of his lost generation is seductive but not likely in real life. It's a brief summary of what's said in more detail in Henning, Dohrenwend, Burdick, etc. (see Talk:Taekwondo/Archive_4#Strong_sources).

As I hope I've indicated above, I too have tried to resolve the dispute by patiently providing detailed discussion of my edits, working with attempts to informally mediate by not editing during such attempts (I edited the page 6 times in July and not yet in August), and by being civil (note the best examples of my alleged incivility given previously), including not constantly responding to what I regarded as false statements such as that I was the only one who felt this way, etc. My desired outcome is the one stated above--cooperative work that is in line with Wikipedia policies on reliable sources and verifiability.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. JJL (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view[edit]

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.

{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:

Discussion[edit]

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.

Conclusion[edit]

After reading through the RfC, I have come to the following conclusion: I encourage JJL to take the disputed evidence to heart and try to improve his editing. However, due to the complete lack of any outside views, I can't really make a concrete decision, as the only people that commented are the same people who were in dispute. As a result, this RfC is being closed due to inactivity rather than the finding of a ruling. Hopefully by now though, tempers and disputes will have subsided some; I'm sure no one wants to so to ArbCom. Wizardman 16:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More