Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:57, 12 November 2008

Misplaced Pages Mediation Cabal
Article	Woo Jang-choon
Status	open
Request date	00:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Caspian blue and Bukubku
Mediator(s)
Comment	opening case, notifying participants

]]

• Note: Please limit posts to this page to brief statements about the nature of the dispute until a volunteer adopts the case. Keep ongoing discussions about the topic to the appropriate talk page(s), but feel free to provide links to the talk page(s) where discussion has happened (and may be ongoing) for the convenience of the informal mediator and other parties. This will help keep discussion from fragmenting out across more pages and make it easier for a volunteer to review the case. Thanks!

Request details

Who are the involved parties?

• Caspian blue
• Bukubku

What's going on?

A content/sourcing dispute with dimensions of Korean and Japanese nationalism.

What would you like to change about that?

Disputing parties have been advised at ANI to seek dispute resolution. Filing the request as an uninvolved party in the hope it helps the situation.

Mediator notes

Hi. I have opened this case. 23:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

A few ground rules:

• I will create sections for each party to comment in. Please address all your comments to me, and not to the other participants.
• Please keep your statements at 200 words or less, unless asked otherwise.
• Please keep all comments on facts, and not on the past, present, or future behaviour of any other users
• All participants are asked to refrain from any editing of the disputed article, the disputed article's talk page, or each other's talk pages until the case is concluded. Any vandalism to the article will be caught by vandalism patrollers, so don't worry about that either.
• I reserve the right to edit any comments or statements which don't fit within these guidelines.
• MedCab is not a formal part of the dispute resolution process, and cannot provide binding sanctions. Nevertheless, I ask that everyone involved agree to:

1. Abide by the outcome of this case
2. Immediately move to the next phase of dispute resolution if you are unable to agree with the final outcome

Please sign just your username below, with four tildes (~~~~) to indicate your agreement with the ground rules and your participation in the case.

• Bukubku:--Bukubku (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
• Caspian blue:

Administrative notes

Discussion

• I have a question before signing my name and proceeding the meditation. The reason for the meditation is still so obscure and is not stated by Bukubku (talk · contribs) at all unlike his self-claim that he has tried to meditate a dispute. Clearly, the process is not initiated by Bukubku but Durova. I only found his allegation via his forum shopping to admins and two bogus ANI reports because the user has refused to address his concern to the pertinent talk page. Nobody at WT:JA agreed with the stance of Bukubku that I inserted "racist contents" and the use had lied that my sources (actually creator's sources) are non-existent. After I opened a discussion and provided in-line sources, the user was very calm unlike his noisy activities for 5 days. His intention can be viewed that Bukubku (talk · contribs) is not interested in resolving the dispute, but to defame me with various dishonest allegation to ANI. Since I provided inline sources that Bukubku demanded, he did not reject any of my sources. So what else should we have to do for the article? Tell me, Bukubku.--Caspian blue 19:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Whether or not you have signed on to the case yet, I require that anyone here address their comments to me and not to other users, as well as being civil at all times. I will ask Durova to come and expand on the nature of the dispute. 20:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

• Do not redact my "question" pertinent to the issue.--Caspian blue 20:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then please remove all the personal attacks and incivility. I'm here to help calm this situation down and get you two talking to each other. Saying things like "to defame me with various dishonest allegation"--even if it is true (which I am not making a judgement on)---doesn't help us work out whatever issue is going on between the two of you. 20:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No, saying "that truth" is not personal attacks nor incivility. The only reason that I consider to proceed the meditation is to prove my integrity seriously flaunted by Bukubku so far. Bukubku should present his reason for what he wants from the meditation after the sources that he wants are presented. I have a chance to look at some of meditation cases, but your removal is totally uncalled.--Caspian blue 21:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me be a little more blunt: I will not tolerate personal attacks, even if they are true. They do not help. Is that clearer? 21:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not make more drama on the question with your unilateral edit. This is a meditation page, not a battle ground.--Caspian blue 21:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not making more drama. I said I reserve the right to edit any comments that don't fit the ground rules. Now, let me be more blunt: you are attacking Bukubku by calling him a liar and saying his only purpose is to make you look bad. Whether that is true or not does not matter. Do you understand that? Please remove the attacks. They do not help the situation, even if they are true. 21:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are. As I said, the brief assessment about Bukubku's attacking me as "liar" and his dishonesty are proven at the talk page of Woo Jang-chon and others. I won't remove my question at all. As long as you're the meditator with the controlling attitude, I don't comply this meditation.--Caspian blue 21:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me how asking someone to be polite is creating drama? 21:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

First of all, your redaction with the false accusation is the first step to create unnecessary drama, I think. I'm really wondering what Bukubku wants from this meditation since he was very quite at my provided sources for 5 days. He did not revert my edit after I inserted the sources to the article. So up to his answer, I would decide whether I dive in this or not. Since you seem to be knowledgeable of MED procedures, if you simply had asked me to edit my question by myself instead of unilaterally removing it in the provocative way, I would rethink about formatting my question. However, this thread is unnecessarily getting expanded by far. You keep demanding me to remove my question as the provocative labeling. You do not realize that your way just makes me upset and that approach is not required politeness. --Caspian blue 22:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, look at your talk page. I asked you to remove your incivility and personal attacks, I have explained why, and I have given you a nice polite way of asking the question you want. 22:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Still, you keep provoking me with the false labeling. Actually, your visits were after your unilateral and provocative redaction. That is not a right communication. As I keep saying that the analysis is far from your accusation of incivility and personal attacks. Constantly attacking me is clearly inappropriateness in your part. I don't want you as the meditator for this. Meditation should be based on mutual trust and civility.--Caspian blue 22:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(out) I am not accusing you or attacking you. Calling another user a liar is not polite, and is an attack. That is all I said. I am here to help, and throwing accusations around does not help. I made it very clear that I reserve the right to remove any attacks here. Please, for the last time, remove your personal attacks against Bukubku and ask your question politely. 22:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes you're, so I'm very upset and tired of your oppressive and controlling tone. Ask Bukubku. Who first used the calling like "the liar" and "shameless editor who should be expelled", and "extraordinary South Korean editor who inserts racism contents" and "sources do deny the contents" which are proven all wrong. Even if this useless discussion is removed, I don't change my stance. However, my question to Bukubku causes your stress, I would reformat this for "me" because I don't want to waste my time talking with you. If I rewrite my question, there should be a condition: I want you to remove this thread including your comment because this is totally unhelpful to proceed the meditation so far. If not, I don't see why I should be here.--Caspian blue 22:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me be perfectly clear: it does not matter what Bukubku has ever said to you. What matters is what you are saying now. Remove your incivility, promise to be polite when working on this case, and I will happily remove this thread. 22:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the comments by you is that I consider your "incivility". That's why I only said to rewrite my question in the simple condition. Please remove this thread including your provocative comments. While you consider my comment is inappropriate which I totally disagree, I do yours very upsetting that you don't think so. I would be as polite as you and Bukbuku do. I don't like circulating game.--Caspian blue 22:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Asking you to be polite is not incivility, and will never be incivility. Remove your incivility, ask your question politely, and I will be happy to remove this thread. 22:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You're not a good talker. Constantly accusing me of doing uncivil with which I don't agree is not an appropriate way to communicate with people but just makes people more upset and get things worse. I said my condition, and you said your condition. I said I would be as much polite and civil as you and Bukubku do. That is a clear promise. So move your comment that I consider upsetting.--Caspian blue 22:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)