Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses as short as possible; a shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues. If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the Arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-consciousness rants are not helpful. Over-long evidence (other than in exceptional cases) is likely to be refactored and trimmed to size by the Clerks.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are not sufficient. Never link to a page history or an editor's contributions, as those will probably have changed by the time people click on your links to view them. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Be aware that Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to re-factor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the Arbitrators to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Contents


[edit] Convenience links


[edit] Evidence presented by Wikimachine

[edit] Basis for NPOV

JPOV has used NPOV policy to overly emphasize a viewpoint that does not deserve that much attention. Currently there are 3 existing possibilites for the basis for NPOV:

1) Liancourt Rocks is a S. Korean island (or equivalent) disputed by Japan 2) """ """ """ Japanese island (""") controlled by S. Korea. 3) """ """ """ is an island controlled by S. Korea, disputed by Japan, and of truly ambiguous ownership.

While NPOV supports equal representation of existing viewpoints, it does not justify prescription beyond description. #1 & (#3 to a slight degree) is the most accepted viewpoint out of the 3. In that framework, Japanese viewpoint is equally represented in its disputing. However, the JPOV has attempted to frame the dispute as something of illegitimate S. Korean control & righteous Japanese disputing - in all of the wording, word order, infobox setup, etc. For example, when you don't need to question the legitimacy of S. Korea's control over Liancourt Rocks, JPOV words the intro so that it openly questions so (S. Korea claims & then controls instead of controls, a control does not entail claim.) The Arb Com needs to see if this is an abuse on JPOV side & re-affirm that #1 is the true basis for NPOV.

[edit] Use of multiple accounts in revert

  • The parties are basically divided into KPOV, JPOV, NPOV (relatively speaking).
  • Both KPOV & JPOV users seem to have used multiple registered & non-registered trashaway accounts.

[edit] Recent rvs

[edit] Ev of trashaway accounts

In fact, most of those anon IP accounts (entirely rv's) seem to be Opp2's. At beginning of 1 rv war, Opp2 says "rv. alphabetic order. do you want rv war?"diff & the other anon account accepts Opp2's challenge but Opp2 never rvs again himself. It might even be proper for the arbitration to ban Opp2.

[edit] Bandwagoning

Liancourt Rocks is diff from other disputes in that the disputants are already "in a club". LactoseTI, Komdori, Opp2, et al attempted to "agree amongst themselves" to fake "consensus" - bandwagoning, giving impression to outside patrollers that there really is a consensus, but they really need outside opinion to change anything (in case that KPOV doesn't agree).

[edit] Never disagreeing amongst each other

  • JPOV has never disagreed amongst each other on a single issue; KPOV has:

I thought there were more/can't find any.

[edit] Planned & not-planned

Sometimes KPOV editors often have disagreements/misunderstanding amongst themselves; not JPOV. This indicates that JPOV is more into the club activity than KPOV , but they turned it around & said that KPOV is more abusive.

  • KPOV misunderstandings/attempts at clarification
  • Kingj123, your rationale behind your edits should be that Liancourt Rocks, despite being disputed, is more Korean & than it is known to be Japanese - not alphabetical order. It's not that D comes before T but that J (Japan) comes before S (South Korea). - user:Wikimachine to user:Kingj123
  • That's non-argument. If a site contains the term Liancourt Rocks, it will show up regardless of whether the similar pages are excluded or not. Show me the Google pages that show this differnece. - user:Wikimachine to user:Reuben
  • Talk:Dokdo/Archive_10#Wikimachine.27s_Handy_Dandy_Guide_to_the_dispute - I had to create this b/c the side advocating for "Dokdo" in that WP:RM didn't use right args, nor understand WP policies, & made a few contradictions amongst themselves while the JPOV (Macgruder, Komdori, LactoseTI) were using clearly well-organized arguments framed & pre-empted, (also they divided their advocacies, 1 for Liancourt Rocks & 1 for Takeshima, as to "divide" votes & provide litmus test for neutrality.)

[edit] Faking identity

[edit] Komdori is not a Korean

Komdori has an "I'm a Korean" userbox on his user page; however many ppl disagree with/question this claim. When I accused him of not being a Korean, he turned it around & said that accusation was a racist attack & implied that, simply, I'm too POV that I can only see someone so NPOV as he as JPOV. Several ppl noticed peculiarities about Komdori, such as his claim that he's married & his wife calls him "komdori" or "teddy bear" (in Korean) - "komdori" is definitely not used among Korean couples to call each other. Some of us suspect that Komdori claimed to be Korean to justify his JPOV stance & incriminate KPOV users of being POVish in comparison to himself, who can even argue against KPOV (KPOV, JPOV are relatively speaking). It opens space for the English Wikipedia to differentiate b/w what Komdori poses to be the neutral Koreans & nationalistic Koreans (theoretically), & to choose Komdori & his proposals over others. He's not being honest, the end aim is to promote JPOV at these Japan-Korea dispute articles.

[edit] JapanToday

Also, his statements on the web are just not sound. You don't normally find Koreans on JapanToday...

All the messages by Komdori are listed at here. Some of his other comments include defense against a claim that "China could sink Japanese navy within minutes"...

[edit] User discussions about this ambiguity

[edit] Most convincing evidence

The most convincing evidence is at Talk:An Jung-geun (a Korean an independence activist during the Japanese colonial era who assassinated then the Prime Minister of Japan). To Koreans (note, these are plain, simple facts) An would be an equivalent of George Washington. Well, some POV decided to call him a "murderer" (same for George Washington, he killed somebody during the American Revolution--> he's a murderer!) I said no; then he offered to call him an assassin, terrorist, etc. Then Komdori jumps in, "If you state it in that way, it sounds too one-sided, glorifying the assassination". It doesn't have anything to do with being unpatriotic, etc. Simply he just can't be a Korean - & it's not like I hate him for not being one or anything, but he's lying.

[edit] LactoseTI is NOT a professor

This almost could become an Essjay Controversy. On Turtle Ship article, (see Talk:Turtle_ship#A_suggestion_on_the_treatment_of_what_we_do_and_don.27t_know) he tried to claim that he was one at an anonymous college at the state of New York & attempted to use that to influence consensus at that page about whether turtle ships were iron-clad or not... And Komdori actually defends him there.

And then somebody commented about how LactoseTI couldn't ever be a professor given that he's been quarreling w/ Melonbarmonster like crazy.


I even asked him at User_talk:LactoseTI#Are_you_really_a_professor.3F if he was a professor. He simply didn't reply. Few others also commented in other pages (lost due to archival & reverts, etc. I can't find them) about how ridiculous this claim seems given how he behaved w/ melon, but he never responded to those attacks either.

[edit] Faking/asserting non-existent consensus

With use of sock puppets (to Opp2: it's not worth reporting them to SOCK b/c they're all fresh, temporary accounts) & just inaccurate comments on discussion (simply, lies), the JPOV side has attempted to feign consensus - especially convincing to patrollers who might otherwise intervene.

[edit] Recent example

  • Diff 1- (background summary) Opp2 argues that the article should use the term "occupy" to describe Korea's control over the islets & that the term should the ONLY one in the article - I reply that that's simply ridiculous.
  • Diff2- (background summary) Opp2 then returns an earlier dispute of wording the intro para to "S. Korea physically controls the islets despite repeated protests by Japan", which I replied was slightly JPOV in wording, and that current "S. Korea occupies the islets and Japan claims it" is much more neutral (although "S. Korea administers" would be much more accurate in showing that Japan doesn't have administrative rights over the islets).
  • Diff3- (summary on "consensus building") Opp2 had unilaterally made changes to the article, which in my view was heavily POV b/c it calls S. Korean control into question (there's no reason to write it "claimed by S. Korea, claimed by Japan, and controlled by S. Korea, the owner doesn't need to claim its own territory) & then called onto Komdori for approval. Komdori makes a suggestion, Phonemonkey joins in "sounds great" & thus the "consensus" is established... Unfortunately I did not see the changes, so I replied "I'm not seeing any changes on history, so I'm not sure what you guys are talking about". The discussion continues with me having a different idea of what is being discussed (I thought we were still talking about "occupy", but Phonemonkey et al used this discussion to kind of embed the new intro version). Look at the section "No way, RV" at which I responded when I found out about the changes.
  • A half dozen or so editors worked on making it better over a period of days or weeks. - Umm, only 4 editors, 3 of which are "old timers", only 1 new comer, and Good friend100, Clownface, and I disagreeing... And plz, that specific change was made over only 1 day or so, w/ quick yes's & "good job"'s.
  • See WP:OWN. Go ahead and file whatever you like Yeah, this is clearly OWN on me (actually more on them) I don't feel like possessing the article at all & all my edits & objections were concerned with POV issues only.
  • In conclusion: "And you guys agreed amongst yourselves. There was never any consensus."

[edit] Personal attacks/Arrogant attitudes

  • There were frequent PAs & arrogant statements made by both sides
  • I probably made most "personal attacks, eh hem" on the KPOV side (again, these KPOV, JPOV, CPOV are relatively speaking) with terms like "you nationalists" "POVs" etc. but I see it as more of a POV attack rather than a personal attack (of course I always could have said it nicely: xxx is POV, but sometimes the situation is just not as happy & agreeable as it should be). In other words, some harsh comments were never personal attacks but rather ways through which I expressed my frustration.
  • You guys are so POV & sensitive to these things that you have to have a debate on which word to use when all of them have similar meanings.
  • Upon your 2nd revert, Lactose, I'll begin arbitration. Mediation committee, mediation cabal - they're all meaningless on this one b/c of you Japanese nationalists.
  • Don't you just love it when LactoseTI suddenly goes all quiet?...You guys are quick to point out other ppl's mistakes & all, but stink when it comes to doing stuffs that you dislike, etc.
  • The JPOV side had personal attacks - arrogant/condescending statements.
  • Wikimachine, please check out WP:OWN--everything moves by consensus (a simpler way: check out WP:OWN)
  • We don't need your permission. See WP:OWN. Go ahead and file whatever you like, they will probably say the same thing. Not to be rough, but if you change your mind and decide to help improve the article instead of wikilawyering (please, as if I'm stubborn & as if I was a newbie when I've been around for 2 yrs)
  • You seem to be over-reacting and paranoid that every comment is a personal attack on you...The only person turning this into a personal issue is yourself. Stop constantly making your argument personal and people might have a modicum of respect for you.

[edit] Conclusion

You can't think of this case as an attempt by me to bypass consensus building, as LactoseTI said, and my "ultimatum" was specific to their attitude & approach - completely no consensus building there. They just claim consensus, but they don't have anything except reverts. Therefore I am obligated to attempt in whatever ways possible to highlight their illegit edits & fix them - it's almost like trying to do something to correct wrong, like vandalism. In fact, some of their edits & proposals (already "agreed" & put into place) are basically vandalous, except that b/c this is "disputed", they can justify themselves. Also, they're just not as clean as they want to portray themselves as. If somebody wants a change contrary to their JPOV, they'll not budge an inch or offer a compromise that is 2-fold worse than what that person wanted. However, they have their own very active "group" (if you notice, both of them basically haven't done much except for some bot edits to furnish their accounts, & all they do is watch this article) that within itself quickly "agrees" and "suggests", & quickly establishes consensus even before any other ppl can basically reply to it. When other ppl tryto revert their illegit "consensus-based" edits, they go "go to talk"; if ppl don't listen, then in cases like arbitration or mediation, they go on accusing why these ppl failed to achieve consensus & be cooperative - like "I don't understand". One thing to remember is that Liancourt Rocks is a Korean territory protested by Japan & the very act of protest doesn't put Japan on equal ownership or equal disputing status as Korea. Then anybody could dispute anything & even the most obvious stuffs would become ambiguous. This is how I see the situation: Russia disputes Alaska. According to them, then, Alaska is a territory disputed b/w US & Russia, not "Alaska is a US state disputed by Russia". They keep forgetting that the NPOV policy should not justify prescription. Wikipedia should describe, not prescribe. (Wikimachine 15:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC))

So, even if the arbitration committee does not get involved in a content dispute, it must decide the basis for NPOV - because that also determines the approach by the 2 sides (as whether to develop on the current version or a complete rewrite of the wording & infobox format, etc.). There are 3 bases for NPOV: 1) Liancourt Rocks is a S. Korean island disputed by Japan 2) a Japanese island disputed by S. Korea 3) an island of truly ambiguous ownership and of illegal ownership by S. Korea. Many of the disputes here are petty, such as whether S. Korea should come first before Japan, etc. (all throughout the article, the JPOV has used "alphabetic order" to put "Japan" in front of "S. Korea") Unless the arbitration committee decides the basis for NPOV (remember this is not simply a matter of content dispute but approach), this dispute will always be disputed as it was before the arbitration. (Wikimachine 21:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

UPDATE - I've suggested that we discuss about the degree of prescription that the current article has (over description) but they've shut me out. Unless the arbitration committee actively prescribes this NPOV basis onto the article they'll continue to not "don't be a dick". (Wikimachine 20:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Evidence presented by Opp2

[edit] User:Wikimachine is violating WP:OWN

[edit] obstruction of consensus

I presented sources of the third-party that used "occupation" as present situation of the islands. And, I proposed the use of "occupetion" that was a general term than "control" and "administration". [1]

  • The first rebuttal reason of Wikimachine was a grammar.[2]
  • The second rebuttal reason of Wikimachine is hit number of google search. [3]

I confirmed it to the native speaker because my English is poor. He answered that there was no grammatical problem. [4] And, I didnot preset the number of google serch as a evidence and source. Wikimashine even did not make an excuse, and presented opposite thirdly reason.

  • The third rebuttal reason of Wikimachine is only repeated with JPOV without presenting evidence that is JPOV.[5]
  • The forth rebuttal reason of Wikimachine is Original Reserch, though I have presented sources and he didn't presente.[6]
  • The fifth rebuttal reason of Wikimachine is difference in Tsushima though Korean government never express the ptotest about Tsushima.[7]

ETC.
Wikimachine changes his opposite reasons one after another. He never presented neither evidence nor the source that we had to use the term of "control" or "administration". He is only obstructing consensus.　This is a similar case.[8] Wikimachine changes his opposite reasons one after another.

[edit] exclusion IDs by his original Sockpapet standard

When there is an inconvenient user for Wikimachine, he recognizes them as Sockpapet. And, he does not try to check user, and to exclude specific ID by his original Sockpapet standard.

  • Opp2 & Jjok [9][10]
  • Boldlyman & Unkown(Opp2?) [11]
  • Komdori & LactoseTI [12]
  • Opp2 & IP[13](Though “60.41.141.211” might be me. It seems that I forgot login.)

[edit] arbitrary administration of Wikipedia policy

He refused the source of Japanese Government though he described clearly as "Japanese claim" before.[14]

  • Does it describe clearly to begin with, "Japanese claim", and why is given to priority to the second Korea POV source over the announcement of Japanese Government?--Opp2 06:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • NPOV policy states that we provide both arguments - whether you think a Korean scholar's argument is bad or not does not matter. The announcement of the Japanese government is a WP:OR. (Wikimachine 06:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC))

But he allowed the site of the South Korea government as a source.[15]

[edit] Basic recognition concerning Korean one-side occupation and dispute

The insistence of Wikimachine is the same as the South Korea government.("One thing to remember is that Liancourt Rocks is a Korean territory protested by Japan & the very act of protest doesn't put Japan on equal ownership or equal disputing status as Korea.") However, these one-sided attitudes are being criticized even by the scholar who supports the Korean claim.

  • In international law the point of time falling at the end of a period within which the material facts of dispute are said to have occurred is usually called the "critical date." It is also the date after which the actions of the parties to a dispute can no longer affect issue.[16]
  • Korea has been unreceptive to Japan's initiatives to submit the dispute to the ICJ, saying that there is no dispute to resolve. This position may be viewed later by a tribunal as inconsistent with the obligation of every state to resolve disputes peaceably, and Korea may be asked to explain whether the ICJ was in some way an inadequate or unfair forum.p21-22

He classifies others into JPOV and is criticizing, though his one-sided opinion is contradiction to International Law.

[edit] One-sided a large amount of correction without discussion

Wikimachine did a one-sided a large amount of correction without discussion and consensus.[17]

[edit] User:Good friend100 is violating WP:OWN and WP:NPOV

He sometimes does the edit without the discussion and consensus. He tries to exclude the interpretation of Japan, and to leave only the interpretation of Korea. And, it causes the edit war.

[edit] <CASE1>

  • He inserts the Japanese maps, and adds only the claim of South Korea. [18]
  • Japane claim about these maps is here. This is based on Japanese assistant professor's thesis[19]
  • He deleted the only Japanes claim. [20]
  • He denied even Japanese assistant professor's thesis as a source. He refuses the interpretation of Japan even if it is described clearly as the Japanese argue.[21]
  • He denied even Japanese assistant professor's thesis again. Japanese assistant professor's thesis is "bad source" for him.[22]

I think that describing both Japan and South Korea interpretations is necessary for NPOV. However, it seems that to exclude the interpretation of Japan is NPOV for him.

[edit] <CASE2>

  • He added the long sentence suddenly at the opening of the section. His edit excluded Japanese claim. [23]
  • The rivert war was generated by this edit. [24][25][26][27]
  • He started a discussion with talkpage after the rivert war. [28]

His edit was suddenly and biased.

[edit] <CASE3>

  • He added a map.[29] And, he insisted that this map was drawn by the Chosun court(source of this information was not presented).[30]
  • The rivert war was generated by this edit. Because this is a map was made by Japanese and he excluded the Japanese interpretation.[31][32][33][34][35]
  • Japanes interraption is here.[36]

[edit] <CASE4>

  • He added a big text without discussion and consensus. [37]
  • he violates "uncooperative editing"[38]
  • He makes bad use of "Slow it down". [39]　No one can rivert his uncooperative editing for eight hours. And, he doesn't discuss seriously about his uncooperative editing. [40][41]

[edit] Evidence presented by Fut.Perf.

[edit] Move-warring history

This is a partial history of the page in question:

Time From To User Edit summary Note
16:25, 29 May 2007 Dokdo Liancourt Rocks Husond move proposal on talk page
16:10, 25 March 2007 Takeshima Islands Dokdo Oncamera rv cut-n-paste
16:04, 25 March 2007 Dokdo Takeshima Islands Eurodollers cut-n-paste
06:22, 7 October 2006 Dokdo/Takeshima Dokdo Visviva rv until consensus is established.
05:44, 7 October 2006 Dokdo Dokdo/Takeshima Geejo see Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis
03:23, 29 September 2006 Takeshima, Shimane Dokdo Nihonjoe Undiscussed move on a very controversial page
19:33, 28 September 2006 Dokdo Takeshima, Shimane Takenaka disambiguation
07:05, 13 August 2006 Takeshima Islands (Jpn) Dokdo Jpatokal here we go again...
06:45, 13 August 2006 Dokdo Takeshima Islands (Jpn) Nullport Dokdo is unofficial name.
June 2006 unknown number of attempted cut-n-paste moves
11:14, 3 June 2006 Dokdo(Takeshma/Liancourt Rocks) Dokdo Henry Flower christ
11:00, 3 June 2006 Dokdo Dokdo(Takeshma/Liancourt Rocks) Bright888
02:51, 28 May 2006 Liancourt Rocks Dokdo Appleby
22:05, 27 May 2006 Dokdo Liancourt Rocks Objectman
00:44, 27 May 2006 Liancourt Rocks Dokdo Appleby
09:20, 13 September 2005 Dokdo Liancourt Rocks Henry Flower neutral title
09:04, 13 September 2005 Liancourt Rocks Dokdo Unimoon Liancourt rock represents Japanese people's intention of making Dokdo as a dispute. It is biased. Following the example of Sensaku, this page should be named after the name given by the administrator of the island; that is, Dokdo, which is adminstrated b
01:26, 2 May 2005 re-established under Liancourt Rocks by admin Lachatdelarue
10:32, 20 March 2005 until April 2005: dozens of cut-n-paste moves between Liancourt Rocks, Liancourt Rock, Liancourt rocks, Liancourt Islands, Dokdo, Dok island
04:31, 10 January 2004 Created as Liancourt Rocks

[edit] Four days' worth of revert-warring

Here's just two random snapshots of life on an idyllic peaceful island.

  • Good friend100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was indef-blocked after the 1/3 September spree as a repeat edit-warrior, but was later unblocked under condition of a 1rr/day parole (see here). The 15/16 Sept edit-war shows that he immediately "used" that as an entitlement for further edit-warring.
    • Update: Good friend100 kept making one revert per day [42], [43]. [44], [45]. Now blocked again for uncooperative editing (making undiscussed contentious reverts without proper edit summaries), as per [46]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Ddksf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) was indef-blocked by me as an apparent throwaway sock/meat single-purpose account used only for edit-warring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncooperative editing by Wikimachine

  • [47]. Sometimes even a single edit, rather than a 3RR violation, constitutes uncooperative edit-warring. This edit, being a blatant shift back to an extreme pro-Korean version of the intro against weeks of intervening editing, is such a case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • [48] Wikimachine systematically plans edit wars, gaming the 3RR system: "When our 24 hrs limit is up, we can revert Opp2's back". Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 48h for blatantly uncooperative disruptive behaviour on talk page. Repeated blatant, explicit refusals to cooperate ([49], blocking rationale here: [50]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clownface, a disruptive single-purpose account

  • Clownface (talk · contribs) has been registered since January 2007. All his edits (48 to date) are to Talk:Liancourt Rocks, and all their content is arguments to the effect that Korea is right and Japan is wrong. Clownface has never made any contribution directed at how to make this a better or more neutral article, let alone helping Wikipedia in some other way. Just fighting for the national cause. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by LactoseTI

[edit] Ingenuous Arbitration Goals

To start off--I still think we could have made progress here without coming to arbitration; it seems a bit preliminary and only as a follow up to a threat during a content dispute here. In my opinion, it's a bit ingenous to try to do an end-around consensus with arbitration, such as making his own version of the article here and trying to cram it down on everyone through arbitration, as he suggests his goal is here. With my current understanding of arbitration here, there seems very little to be gained by "running to the arbitration committee" (no offense to the committee), and on these grounds I'd prefer to stay out of it. Since I somehow got dragged into this arbitration case despite a rather sporadic/rare posting to that page, it seemed prudent to give a few comments and diffs. Several are from other pages than Liancourt Rocks, but helps support some basic observations of behavior.

[edit] WP:OWN, WP:NPA, etc.

As I mentioned in my comments before this was accepted for arbitration, I believe that it is somewhat natural to have high-spirited discussions about content on controversial article pages, and it is also (occasionally) natural to "forget oneself" and get a bit off-topic. However, saying things like "Do you go to Northwestern, hey? I don't think that you know enough about Korean history to make opinions on this, just don't mind this & move on to another article or a project." to a new editor with fewer than a dozen or so edits smacks of tredding dangerously against WP:OWN and Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. Since I have both little ones and teenagers, I consider myself a bit more patient and overall thick-skinned than most, but many others just find somewhere else to go after such negative experiences. Like I said, I expect a certain degree of "heat" in discussions on controversial article pages, but sometimes I think this type of discouragement goes a bit too far and others might leave when called "stupid" or "liars".

[edit] Lack of reading before posting, lack of basic understanding of policies

To me a major root of the problem is a lack of reading before speaking/posting--something all too prevalent in the world today, as well as a general lack of understanding (or exposure) to the basic policies here. Wikimachine mentions he feels he is sometimes treated, "as if I was a newbie when I've been around for 2 yrs," but gently reminding people of policies when they fall badly astray of them is hardly a personal attack, especially when Wikimachine himself says he has spent two years here without being aware of such policies as WP:FORUM only a few days ago here. He also mentions that a consensus was developed and he replied without reading; when the consensus was finished and put in place, he starts a section called, "No way, RV" and threatened arbitration if others didn't go along with him. In my opinion, arbitration shouldn't be used as a club or a threat in a content dispute like this. In any case, whether or not an editor is here for a few years and thousands of edits shouldn't really matter--if they demonstrate a basic lack of understanding when it comes to such things as WP:CONSENSUS or WP:NPOV, a reminder to review the policies isn't out of order (even in his evidence section, he frames an argument in terms of who's right and wrong between Korea and Japan when he says, "There's no reason to write it 'claimed by S. Korea, claimed by Japan, and controlled by S. Korea, the owner doesn't need to claim its own territory'"). He also mentioned in his argument for arbitration that a group of five editors (including Wikimachine himself) were discussing a change, and he wanted to "veto" it. In response to someone saying, "We don't need your permission," he continued, "but they do because they have permission from no one else outside their party either." He goes on, [here] with an excellent first sentence describing what happened after discussion and debate: that after much work, eventually "you guys agreed amongst yourselves," but then goes on to say, "There was never any consensus," I'm guessing because he didn't give his stamp of approval.

[edit] Intentional revert warring, trying to get admins to violate consensus

Other examples of contributing behavior are making ultimatums and threatening revert wars. I understand that you can sometimes get "caught up" in the moment, but calculating out when you get "your three revert" again each 24 hrs is a bit harsh. He's active in RfA's, I guess to attempt to run to them/canvas them later ("I'm in process of gathering our reliable admins here for their opinion")--such as here. He is then "disappointed" when they don't forcibly violate the consensus. I also don't care for the definition of "sides" that Wikimachine laid out, and I think it goes quite a bit to the root of the problem on this (and related) pages. By setting up sides, some users fall into a "win" and "lose" mentality, which is clearly not the spirit of Wikipedia and I think it contributes to the high emotions.

[edit] Anonymous IPs

Wikimachine is right that occasionally anonymous IP's come in and cause issues with the article, but not really in the discussion page. When these get a bit unmanageable, I would suggest just applying for semi-protection. It has generally worked in the past in the few instances where things got a bit out of hand (such as when a Wikipedian contributed an article to the largest newspaper in Korea "canvassing" "votes" for the request for move).

[edit] Conclusion

I'm sorry to come down a bit hard on Wikimachine in these comments; overall there has still been some slow progress on the articles (it's not just Liancourt Rocks, it's most that have any controversial element where he happens to be involved). I don't mind editing alongside an editor who has strong feelings, but pulling this into an arbitration case to cram his version of the article on everyone else, seems like a big waste of time--especially when I already have a relatively small amount of time to edit. I still think we could have worked things out, or come a bit closer, with RFC's, mediation, etc.


[edit] Evidence presented by Phonemonkey

I am a relative newcomer to this article; my point of entry was this recent discussion which led to the arbitration request: Talk:Liancourt Rocks#Occupation or Control or Administration?. I am not sure if the focus of this arbitration is the revert-warring on the main article, or the quality of debate on the talk page; however basing my judgement solely on my experiences after my point of entry my opinion is that the problem lies with the latter. I would say that all aspects of the problems which adversely affect "civilized debate leading to consensus" manifest themselves throughout this one discussion thread I just mentioned, so most of what I say below is drawn from this thread (although some of the diffs I bring up as an example are from subsequent threads.)

[edit] Automatic assumption of POV

I believe the root of the problem is that Wikimachine cannot help but see this as some sort of a "team sport", with two opposing camps named "KPOV" and "JPOV". Wikimachine's use of the phrase "Phonemonkey et al" in this arbitration discussion shows that, because I happen to agree with someone's suggestion (in the first discussion about this article which I have ever taken part in), in his mind I have been categorised as belonging to that particular camp.

An example of the result of this false assumption Wikimachine holds, that no editor here is NPOV, is that a simple comment which I made in which I agreed with someone's suggestion [51] was interpreted as some sort of a malicious attempt to "feign consensus" [52]. There were four editors involved, three of which were attempting to discuss changes which the last one did not agree with. At no point did anyone attempt to play the number game - Wikimachine was repeatedly invited to justify his opposition to the suggestion [53], which he failed to do as logged in Opp2's evidence above. I don't see the resulting consensus as in any way "feigned". This accusation was simply based on the fact that the rest of the so-called KPOV team did not participate, which is contrary to WP:OWN.

Wikimachine himself indicated that this was the very reason why he would not accept this consensus [54].

[edit] Disruptive discussion

Arguments based solely on assertions, which fail to address the actual points raised. [55]

Arguing for the sake of opposing: in a thread where he was initially in opposition to the word "occupy", presumably he got muddled and begins to seemingly argue against those who opposed the word "occupy" (when nobody else did but him) [56] [57] . When it was pointed out to him that he was actually arguing in agreement with everyone else, he responds with unclear comments [58] [59] before reverting back to arguing against the change. I feel this is opposing for the sake of opposing, seemingly based on a vendetta which I assume started a long time before I joined this discussion.

Personal attacks: Goodfriend100 and Wikimachine make it clear what they think of other editors which they percieve to be in the "opposing team". [60]) [61])

Numerous other cases of incivility by Goodfriend100 and Wikimachine, against LactoseTI and Komdori - presumably the old vendetta issue. To the credit of Wikimachine, he only subjected me to such treatment once when I pointed out an invalid reference, to which he immediately apologised [62], and Goodfriend100 has always been civil to me.

[edit] Finally

I realise the above seems very harsh on Wikimachine, so a few points to counteract it.

  • I assume this is lot more than what I know about - I guess this has been going on for quite some time before I joined the topic. As I said, my opinion above, and my observation that LactoseTI and Komdori are good-faith, NPOV editors, is based solely on what I have experienced since I joined recently, and perhaps there are good reasons why Wikimachine has come to assume bad faith.
  • I would like to stress that I do not believe for a second that Wikimachine and Goodfriend100 are bad-faith editors like the many anon IPs which seem to plague this topic. As I have already stated, I feel that most of the above problems stem from a simple issue - their mistaken assumptions that editors here need to be categorised into two opposing POV camps, and the resulting vendetta mentality. I believe that (to an extent) each topic of discussion should be handled on their own merits, not on who the participants are. If they abide by WP:good faith, WP:personal attacks, WP:Consensus and WP:OWN, then I am happy to work with them. I am already seeing signs of improvements.

[edit] Evidence presented by Watermint

Please let me add an opinion a little.--Watermint 10:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not KPOV vs JPOV, but KPOV vs the other editers

I feel that the above mentiond assertion by Wikimachine is strange. Simply, If Japanese POV editers exist there, they probably insist that "the article should be move to Takeshima, the island is illegal occupied by Korea with military power, despite Japanese territory". (FYI, it is the same as protest of Japanese government)

People called "JPOV" by Wikimachine are only going to balance both the Korean Government's protest and the Japanese Government's protest. They have not necessarily repeated the protest of the government of their own country. However, Wikimachine believes unconditionally that a South Korean protest is right.[63] [64] [65]

[edit] Wikipedia is not a battlegroud between Korea and Japan

Goodfriend and Wikimachine have a misunderstanding about Wikipedia. They have realized there is a battleground between Korea and Japan. I seem that they are doing the bilateral dispute. Talk:Liancourt Rocks#ownership --> legitimate rights

[edit] Personal Attacks

Although many examples are already reported, I want to add the followings.

  • Wikimachine was calling "racist dude" the User who didn't agree with his opinion. [66]

His character regards me as having appeared notably in this conversation.

[edit] Wikimachine's attitude example

On Wikimachine's assertion, he said, "An Jung-geun a Korean an independence activist during the Japanese colonial era who assassinated then the Prime Minister of Japan". However, An assassinated Ito Hirofumi in 1909 when Korea was an independent country. (Japan officially annexed Korea in 1910-1945 by Japan-Korea Annexation Treaty. ) Therefore, the opinion actually exists that "An was not an independent activist".

I don't care which is right or wrong. I'm not going to argue here about the contents. I'd like to point out his attitude of "never accepting except his opinion." He's constantly convinced that his opinions are ONLY NPOV([67], [68], [69], [70],) then he regards all other opinions as Japanese (or Chinese) POV or a vandalism ([71],[72], [73], [74]). He does never compromise with others cause he believes his opinions are absolutely right. Furthermore, he tends to impute responsibility to other users. ([75], [76], [77], [78]) I want him to have the tolerance to respect the other users a little more.

[edit] Evidence presented by Sennen Goroshi

[edit] Personal Attacks

I shall make this short and sweet. throughout every discussion wikimachine constantly resorts to personal attacks whenever he his opinion is not bowed down to, or he feels it is needed for him to prove a point. I can understand people getting annoyed now and then, but this seems to be a constant issue with wikimachine. as for evidence, you dont need to look any further than this page ...scroll up a little and find:

The most convincing evidence is at Talk:An Jung-geun. This person was a Korean an independence activist during the Japanese colonial era who assassinated then the Prime Minister of Japan. To Koreans (note, these are plain, simple facts) An would be an equivalent of George Washington. Well, some really stupid person decided to call him a "murderer"


sorry if Im complaining to much, but I do find "really stupid person" to be a personal insult. Sennen goroshi 14:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't want you guys making wrong compromises and stuffs just b/c of this racist dude

What are you then? A vandal? Yes all these things are vandalous. Why? They're racist edits.

yet again, Im being called a racist, because my edits dont agree with his POV.

and comments implying that because he has been editing wikipedia for a couple of years, he wont get banned, due to him knowing the rules inside out, and that he has the power to get me banned, if he so wished.

Why are you still using this account? I have a much more comprehensive knowledge of Wikipedia's policy than you & I've been around for more than 2 years

I could get you blocked as a vandal.

this is another mistake you made, just quit this account

I have suggested that wikimachine is biased, that is a fair comment and relevant to wikipedia. I have suggested that he use myspace, in order to give his opinions, because wikipedia is for facts, not opinions.

Personal dramas have no place in wikipedia. I don't care how relevant wikimachine's facts are, if he cannot edit without resorting to personal attacks, then a block/ban should be in place.Sennen goroshi 19:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Endroit

This kind of thing has been ongoing for a year now, mostly in controversial Korea-related articles: Wikimachine and Good friend100 have filled up talk pages with arguments which often don't make sense or are flawed. Hopefully, some of the edit histories below will help clarify what they're trying to say or do.

[edit] Wikimachine plays the race card (WP:NPOV & WP:CANVASS violations)

Wikimachine has resorted to POV-labeling, of other editors as either "JPOV" (Japanese POV) or "CPOV" (Chinese POV), and themselves as "KPOV" (Korean POV). Wikimachine has clearly played the "race-card" in his quest to advocate their own version of "KPOV". To help further their cause, Wikimachine has even solicited for help from editors whom he believed were Koreans.

[edit] Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) (September 2006)

--Endroit 18:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goguryeo (March 2007)

  • Background: Wikimachine suggests the creation of a POV fork in this discussion, and defends his rationale in terms of "CPOV" and "KPOV".
  • 16:27, 18 March 2007 — Wikimachine tells his opponents to create a POV fork: "... CPOV can start a new article on Gaoguli if they want to."
  • 04:08, 19 March 2007 — Wikimachine explains what he means by "CPOV" & "KPOV" (after Nlu reminds him of the WP:NPOV policy on POV-forks): "Not sure what you mean by "POV forks", but when I talk about "CPOV" & "KPOV", I'm not necessarily saying that I advocate a "POV" of some sort, but I'm using the terms out of convenience. For example, when I talk about "KPOV" editors, I'm not saying that Good friend100 is KPOV, but he is on what people would generally consider as a "Korean side", in relations to the advocacies made for what people would easily call Chinese viewpoint."

Note: In the interim, Wikimachine challenges Nlu in another article, gets blocked for it, cries foul, and gets unblocked by another admin.

  • 17:46, 22 March 2007 — Wikimachine gives his rationale using the term "CPOV", citing WP:IAR among other things: "Isolating CPOV view on Goguryeo and other related matters is not POV fork...."
  • Thereafter, everybody just ignored Wikimachine on this issue, and no further harm was done.

--Endroit 17:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military history of Goguryeo (June 2007)

[edit] Other outbursts of racism and/or incivility by Wikimachine

[edit] How Wikimachine plays (and "wins") the "debate" game (WP:CON violation)

Wikimachine always has a sense of "winning a debate" against fellow editors, and this sometimes prevents him from reaching any sort of consensus with the others. Whenever Wikimachine imposes his particular view against consensus, this can be disruptive.

[edit] Liancourt Rocks (May 2007)

Here's how (out of the blue) Wikimachine decided that he has won a "policy debate" by (in his words) "placing 2-level double bind" against one editor:

  • 01:26, 23 May 2007: "...I suggest that you look in the archive on this debate because I crushed it by placing 2-level double bind on Macgruder...."
  • 20:21, 24 May 2007: "Um... You can't unbind a double bind unless you lose the entire debate. It's either you gain access to half of your arguments while losing half of your arguments & therefore you lose.... or you gain the other half while losing the first half and you lose. Good job."
  • 17:10, 25 May 2007: "Ahh, I'm not being a smartie. It's quite a common term in policy debate."
  • 17:30, 26 May 2007: "Ah, I can't win this debate? I've been winning it all along, and so have the search results supported my assertions. Read the Handy Dandy guide because that's how I see this debate. I'm a policy debater, and I know I can't lose a debate like this...."
  • 00:42, 11 June 2007: "Yes, I replied mostly because most of the discussion I was the only one replying. I had to cover Komdori, Macgruder, Parsecboy, Philip Baird Shearer, Opp2, etc. All of them & I didn't lose the debate - (however admins decided to call it a night)."

[edit] Ignoring Wikimachine in his "debate" makes his arguments "100% applicable"

  • 16:26, 18 March 2007 in Talk:Goguryeo: "...was there some sort of tacit consensus that my posts would be ignored? I'm all fine with that, with the type of editors that might appear on serious disputes as this one, but let me tell you now (as I stated above). Any uncontested arguments remain 100% applicable (because nobody gave reasons why they are wrong --> 0% risk that it is wrong). Even if you guys form a consensus or whatever, without having let me apply what I want to say to this debate, you guys aren't going anywhere. Got it?"

[edit] Dubious sourcing by Good friend100 (WP:NOR & WP:NPOV violations)

Good friend100 introduces dubious sources, even in articles for which he has little understanding of. In some cases, his sources are biased, and in other cases his interpretations are wrong or biased. Despite being reminded, Good friend100 sometimes remains defiant, refuses to understand the issue, and resorts to revert-warring.

[edit] Goguryeo (May 2007)

[edit] List of tributaries of Imperial China (April to June 2007)

[edit] Suspicion of sockpuppetry w/ disruptive edit-warring

Evidence at a couple of RFCU's show disruptive edit-warring patterns (and sockpuppetry) during specific date ranges. They involve the following IP's, which all resolve to "dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net":

The 2 relevant RFCU's here are:

These appear to be roving IP addresses (all resolving to "dsl.pltn13.sbcglobal.net"), deliberately changed from time to time for evasion. However, there is only one IP address at any given time.

Every time the IP address changes, the new IP address remains constant until changed again later.

I would like to ask checkusers, to please check and see if the above IP addresses were used by any disruptive editor during the above specified date ranges.--Endroit 22:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good friend100

Good friend100's ISP was reported to be sbcglobal.net by Wikimachine (same as above). Please check if any of their IP addresses match during the above date ranges, for either of these 2 editors.--Endroit 22:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimachine & Bason0

Without speculating whether Wikimachine is a meatpuppeteer or a sockpuppeteer (or both), here is some evidence linking Wikimachine with Bason0 (talk · contribs) (and Bason0's socks). The following are very peculiar edits by the 2 parties, as if they worked in tandem (or perhaps were inspired by each other):...

1. Filed frivolous sockpuppet reports:

2. Accused Komdori of NOT being a Korean:

3. Filed misguided AIV reports:

[edit] Fixersfixers & AirFrance358

Sept. 24:

Sept. 25, suspected socks of Fixersfixers (using different IP addresses):

--Endroit 06:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sept. 26:

--Endroit 22:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sept. 27:

--Endroit 14:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Oct. 3:

--Endroit 14:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by User:Good friend100

I have several arguments regarding not only Liancourt Rocks, but problems between pro-Japan and pro-Korea editors.

[edit] LactoseTI, Komdori, Endroit are making this a race issue

Endroit's arguments above keep isolating Wikimachine and I. He also accuses Wikimachine of playing the "race card". I, however, disagree with this. LactoseTI and Komdori are the ones making this into a race issue. The issue at Liancourt has never been about race, only about neutrality.

[edit] Why this article is biased

The reason why we are fighting over this article is because of the fact that the article is already pro-Japanese in many ways. How is this article biased? It doesn't even look biased at a casual glance. However there is one important reason.

Komdori, LactoseTI, Endroit, and Opp2 keep using WP:NPOV to justify their edits. However, their justifications are wrong. Korea has a stronger historic claim on the islands and politically today, Liancourt Rocks is leaning towards South Korea. These points will show up in the article no matter what. Trying to put Japan at an equal political footage with Korea doesn't work.

I'm not saying that this article should be pro-Korea. I want this article to be neutral. But what Komdori and Lactose are doing is pro-Japanese and this article is already very biased. Because they use WP:NPOV to justify their claims, it seems as if their edits are fair. It is not. For example, they both argue that the lead paragraph should say "Korea and Japan claim Liancourt". It should be "Korea admnisters the Liancourt rocks while Japan claims them". Several editors pointed this out, however, JPOV editors then said that the rocks are administered by both countries. This is not true because no source says that both countries "administer" them. JPOV editors justified their edits saying that Japan administers the islets because of "paperwork". They eventually won out (using NPOV) and now the article is presented in a pro-Japan way.

Again, my above comment looks like I'm saying that the article should be pro-Korea. I'm not. I want the article to be neutral and not pro-Japan, or at least less pro-Japanese. JPOV editors keep using WP:NPOV to justify their claims, and it is not fair for them to use WP:NPOV as an advantage to edit the article as they wish to.

[edit] LactoseTI, Komdori, and Opp2 have strong anti-Korean sentiment

Fighting occurs because several editors are not only pro-Japan, but also anti-Korean. LactoseTI and Komdori's actions and attitudes are clearly not the spirit of editing on Wikipedia, nor are their attidudes welcome here. Their edits on Korea-related articles are all about the negative aspects of the articles. I have never seen them make a neutral edit to a Korea-related article and I'm not exxagerating.

There are several good examples as to why these editors are anti-Korean. They are always constantly tearing apart Korea-related articles.

  • LactoseTI is sweating out at Kimchi. He tries to emphasize that Kimchi causes gastric cancer. All that needs to be done is write the sentence in the article, source it, then leave it alone. Yet Lactose keeps making the issue bigger and bigger by editing the article to negatively represent kimchi. For example, he looks down on kimchi's nutritious value by writing that we shouldn't emphasize about a "ladies magazine". This "ladies magazine" happens to be the magazine Health. [100] The Health magazine recommends that kimchi has an outstanding nutritious value, a jab in the stomach for an anti-Korean like LactoseTI.
  • It is clear to me that LactoseTI and Komdori are anti-Korean. Examples like An Jung-geun show it. Here, LactoseTI and Komdori engage in an edit war to add information that An was a "terrorist" [101]. For background, An was a Korean independence activist who assasinated a Japanese leader in China. Only from a Japanese point of view could you say that An was a "terrorist". Certainly, from the Korean point of view, An is a "leader" or "hero". The article had a neutral (yes, neutral, not even pro-Korean) description of An being an independence activist. Independence activist is clearly something that normal editors like Lactose or Komdori should agree on. Yet, they show that they are anti-Korean by editing even that. They also emphasize that An was a "assasin". Certainly a view from Japan, and certainly a view that anti-Koreans would take.
  • In another Korean article, Goguryeo, LactoseTI and Komdori also emphasize the negativity of the article. In Wikipedia, Goguryeo has had a history of fighting between pro-China and pro-Korea editors which stems from a political argument between Seoul and Beijing. Along with several pro-Chinese editors, both LactoseTI and Komdori have scarred the article, which now has a neutrality tag on it. I attempted to remove the neutrality tag, but my moves have been halted. These editors' reasoning is that the article is unstable and needs the tag. I see no reason because the article is not too problematic and that the tag is a stain to the article and has a negative impression from outside readers. Now, an editor is suggesting we put a neutrality tag on Liancourt Rocks because its unstable and biased. To that, LactoseTI curtly responded that "a tag generally is a reflection of some specific goals/reason for the claim, otherwise it could conceivably stay there forever"[102]. This statement certainly applies to Goguryeo! LactoseTI makes it clear that he treats different articles differently. Currently, at Goguryeo, improvement is stagnant, thanks to LactoseTI and Komdori who immediately revert anything that is added.

The above examples are just a few, there are more. I mentioned that expansion and work is nonexistant at Goguryeo because of LactoseTI and Komdori. This is true for some other Korean articles. These editors frequently engage in edit warring (although they immediately stop before breaching 3RR, a pattern I've seen happen) in these Korea-related articles). LactoseTI and Komdori's actions prevents any good expansion and work in Korea-related articles.

Not only these two, but other pro-Japan editors create a very negative atmosphere in the talk pages of the articles and their biased proposals prevent any good-spirited edits from happening. These editors shamelessly engage in edit wars, edit everything their own way, and have an attitude that is certainly not the Wikipedia way. They disregard Wikipedia policies and damage the Wikipedia spirit of good-faithed and neutral editing.

[edit] My conclusion

I seriously think users here should be commented for their behavior and actions. I'm not saying I'm perfect, and neither are other Korea side editors. An administer has already blocked 3 Korea side editors for their actions, something that I see as going to far across the line. I'm saying that editors that haven't been punished need to be at least warned for their actions. I believe that these editors should be dealt with accordingly. Good friend100 22:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

[edit] {Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

[edit] {Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.