Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Evidence

Response to some ridiculous claims
You guys think just b/c I can't reply back you can get away with these attacks, but no, I'll answer them here.

Watermint

 * JPOV already views that their end goal is far too left or right for them to accomplish anything with - therefore JPOV does aim @ Liancourt Rocks (read my post @ talk page about the negative assertion). As long as JPOV gets the island to be called "Liancourt Rocks" rather than "Dokdo", they've got the fact that the island is disputed - which is as far as they need to go.
 * KPOV vs all other editors? Wrong, I can specifiy exactly which editors are JPOV & I'm not targeting ppl outside of that boundary. However, I'm reserving rights to accuse/consider sock puppets in the equation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimachine (talk • contribs) 13:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is a battle ground? Read Talk:Liancourt_Rocks. I specifically said that I don't dislike Japan & I like Japanese stuffs & I am accepting of Japanese viewpoints as long as they're not emphasized in nationalistic ways in addition to : "I do what I do here simply b/c that is the right thing to do. Also, don't think that you're making some symbolic victory by doing what you want here or getting ppl blocked/banned."
 * The "battleground" thingy might have been about international law - Japan's contestation of Korean control.
 * He was a racist dude, read the talk page, he tried to call someone a murderer, when I protested, he threatened that my other options were assassin, terrorist, convicted murderer, etc... The original version said he was an independence activist. He just hated that for some reason so he pushed everybody to get it to nationalist, which is not as descriptive, but oh well.

Phonemonkey

 * It's very easy for you to turn this around & say I think that Wiki is a team sport, I do believe that there are truly impartial editors @ Liancourt Rocks (I divided groups into KPOV, JPOV, and NPOV above)
 * So you guys do "feign consensus". I can't make accusation on that? I've had about 2 years to make assumptions & I've made enough of them. You haven't been around for long so you don't know anything that's or has been going on.
 * This had a very good point: why try to fight over those smallest details, get over it. You didn't present rest of my message - you guys are so JPOV & sensitive that you've got to call an orange reddish orange as orangish red (assuming that you were red POV). Now, this is not a big deal, but I can't give in b/c my conscience tells me that it's simply wrong.
 * Thannks for your kind conclusion. Sry, "you guys" is for the several few & may not include you.

(Wikimachine 13:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC))


 * Response on your user page. Phonemonkey 21:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sennen goroshi
Let's clear this out, Sennen b/c I'm 100% confident that the cards are against you. According to you, anybody who's killed anyone at any point of his life should be called a murderer, and murderer only (exclusive) - & then emphasized @ the first sentence of the intro para. Then, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, all of the American soldiers in Iraq, all the people who fought against the Russians in Eastern Europe, basically all the soldiers in service for all countries (XXX was a murderer who fought in WWI), etc. When other Wikipedians protest that you're going too far & we need to call Thomas Jefferson the Prez of US (instead of murderer, b/c he killed ppl in the revolution), then you offer "fine, a conspirator against the British Empire b/c from the British perspective, that he was 1 of the founders of the USA & the drafter of the 1st US constitution is too US POV). What are you then? A vandal? Yes all these things are vandalous. Why? They're racist edits. But you got away b/c you masked it as an ethnic POV dispute. (Wikimachine 18:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC))

I could get you blocked as a vandal. (Wikimachine 18:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC))


 * Calling him a murderer is not a POV, it is a fact.
 * That is all there is to it, terrorist/activist are more difficult because he would be both/either depending on your viewpoint, but there is no confusion regarding him being a murderer
 * and no, someone American (although I dont know why it matters to you if they were American or not) who killed someone in WW2, would not be a murderer, as they are a combatant. (wow, some hypocrisy)
 * So you can never assassinate someone legally? Who defines what's legal? the law defines what is legal
 * I tried to compromise and put assassin instead of murderer or terrorist
 * Also it's different from terrorism. Terrorists attempt to terrorize & kill the whole population, it's indiscriminate mass killing. Assassination's against 1 person. It is unacceptable for you to take something out in order to emphasizing something else. Assassin is someone who professionalizes in the act of assassination If you have pride in your nation, thats really nice, but perhaps you should show your pride in a myspace page or something similar. so how about it, no mention of murderer (although legally he was) no mention of terrorist (although he was as much a terrorist, as an activist) and merely add "and assassin" ?

Ev of JPOV

 * The content of this article is biased claim by Korean. In order to see a viewpoint of Japanese, please translate Japanese Wikipedia into English
 * "he was an independence activist, terrorist, freedom fighter, convicted murderer and assassin" it will also say "some Koreans view him as a hero, some Japanese view him as a murderer and some people really dont care" it's all more than a little childish. therefore, a compromise has to be the only way to go..well either that or delete the entire entry. I was more than willing to compromise,
 * He already approached the subject in a JPOV vs. KPOV framework of thinking. It is inevitable that he's a POV to begin with.
 * See how he thinks that his POVish logic makes sense - thus reaffirming the fact that he's a POV.
 * His "compromise":
 * Call him independence activist, terrorist, freedom fighter, convicted murderer and assassin
 * Or... call him simply a nationalist & assassin
 * Or... delete the entire entry.

Wow.

Some of his "Personal attacks"
If you haven't noticed, I never used any personal attacks & took in all these insults until basically I got further into the discussion (15 replies later) when my patience ran out, even then it was a very legit attack & not aimed directly at him but said to someone else (w/o violating good faith).

(All of these are his PA's that he made before I made a single one)
 * however Im sure some pro-Korean/anti-Japanese racist will revert my edits (he made the 1st "racist" attack in the entire discussion/thread)
 * wikimachine you seem very biased and your comments make no sense.
 * You are the biased editor
 * If you have pride in your nation, thats really nice, but perhaps you should show your pride in a myspace page or something similar.

What these indicate is that he himself is POV so within his framework of thinking he assumes that I have to be POV too. That is the inevitable result of his bias.

My "PA"s

 * Look, all this problem came about b/c someone wanted to call him a murderer. I think it's best to leave it under my version. - This is my first comment attempting to show the ridiculous situation that all of us were in. And this wasn't even a personal attack.
 * this POV guy just wanted to make him a criminal & that's where it all began - this is 2nd, & it was a POV attack, basically (equivalent of some of his "pa"s listed above)
 * Again, his independence activism was a big part of his life - why shouldn't it be in the intro? Just to satisfy your Japanese nationalism? Hell no this was probably the 1st incivil comment, but, again, this was when Komdori revealed his true identity -he'd been faking that he was a Korean.
 * Do you seriously think that I will return what I'd consider vandalism & a racist attack with the French burgeois tongue currently popular in our Wiki? No sorry.

(Wikimachine 18:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC))
 * It's just like trying to describe George Washington as the 1st US President & the commander in chief during the American Revolution - except some racist dude comes out & says "from now on we're going to call him a rebel against the British Empire" And when I protest "No, he was the commander in chief..." And then the racist dude replies "Fine, then we'll call him a murderer. It's your choice." It never had to be this choice. Just as George Washington is what he is known as today, An Jung-geun is what he was - an independence activist & I don't want you guys making wrong compromises and stuffs just b/c of this racist dude - you guys simply don't know about Korean history enough to make the right decisions based purely on neutrality (which was completely misused, to begin with, coming with lame compromises) This was the 1st time I used the term "racist dude" (which Sennen complained about).

Endroit
Some of your data are legit, but that was when I didn't understand Wikipedia's policies at all & I just got out of middle school.


 * I didn't know about WP:CANVASS. If I did I wouldn't have done that, and also the "other side" was canvassing as well - the younger ones always learn from the older ones.
 * I didn't initially think that Wikipedia had to be a team sports (as you can see my user name "Wikimachine" signals good intention) but in disputes I witnessed sock puppets, canvassing, etc., so I thought that my canvassing, relatively, would be ok.
 * The nationalistic comments to Komdori, I really didn't mean to say all of them except that I was testing if he was really Korean.
 * However, let me note, some of those "canvassing" were copy-pastes, I think. I'm surprised that I asked for user:Masterhatch's opinion on this.
 * Don't list some of my "proposals" in the talk page with "canvassing", you're inflating your data.

Again, I can laugh at my own edits b/c they sure sound really immature. If you look at it that way, a lot of your ev. are irrelevant now b/c they're on disputes basically 1~2 yrs ago on a different article. (Wikimachine 03:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC))

Fut. Perfect
You're wrong. My edits you showed were NPOV & that was the article's original status b/f Opp2 discreetly edited it without discussion. You as an admin will not take sides on this arbitration case. You failed to see that LactoseTI & Komdori & Phonemonkey never made any compromises & we've gotten to nowhere except that Lactose & Komdo got the version they wish on the page. All this is at the end of the day, that's all that matters - I don't speak the French burgeois tongue like some of those other editors so you might not notice it but I do. (Wikimachine 14:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC))

Request for review of the currently supervising admin's conduct
'':::Look, I'm really sick of these cooperative & nice faces you guys are putting on, didn't I already state my terms on how the current version can be improved? Don't make it POV by putting "claimed by South Korea and Japan and controlled by South Korea". That's probably the only thing that's concerning you (you probably find the rest of my "neutral version' acceptable). How can it be improved? Copy-paste my "neutral version". We already had discussion abuot this already. (Wikimachine 15:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC))''

::::*You are sick of cooperative behaviour? ::::*Precisely the only thing that you think the other side cares about is what must absolutely be avoided? ::::*You are setting "terms" on how the article can be improved? ::::*Your version is the neutral version? ::::*The only conceivable improvement to the article is to adopt your version wholesale? ''::::That's the most brazen-faced refusal to cooperate that I've ever come across. Blocked for 48 hours. People really shouldn't be obliged to put up with this kind of behaviour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)''

The admin (user:Future Perfect at Sunrise) here has abused his powers toward threat construction to punish the theoretically misbehaving participants here at the discussion. Thus we reserve right to test the admin's neutrality & to frame the direction of the discussion toward neutrality.

First are the warrants of the contention on admin's abuseev. The new rules of conduct (i.e. ROUGE) specifies 1) uncooperative editing 2) slow it down 3) naming lamelessness 4) balatant POV 5) edit summaries. These are all specific to the edits in the mainspace not the discussion. The admin specified "uncooperative editing" for the block of Wikimachine; however "Uncooperative" means: any edit that significantly shifts the POV balance in such a way that a reasonable outside observer must know in advance it will be unacceptable to the other side. The definition the admin provided is thus specific to the mainspace, not the discussion.

The process of threat construction the admin deployed is as follows: Wikimachine: "Look, I'm really sick of these cooperative & nice faces you guys are putting on" --> somehow this translates into Wikimachine's wish to be uncooperative when it could be that Wikimachine is accusing the other side of being uncooperative. Future Perfect at Sunrise: "Precisely the only thing that you think the other side cares about is what must absolutely be avoided?" Again, this is the admin's attempt to powertag Wikimachine's statement as a threat where he attempts to frame specific "something"(i.e. personal opinion) that is common and commonly accepted in and of itself as different & thus that of the "other" that is (either bad or good) dangerous & thus must be destroyed & controlled. You are setting "terms" on how the article can be improved? Wikimachine has the right to set the terms on how the article can be improved, as that is the right of anyone else. The admin theoretically is given no power to exercise control over how the users frame the discussion. Your version is the neutral version? Wikimachine believes so, it is his own logical conclusion, and the admin has no administrative jurisdictional or the legal constitutional right to manipulate, alter, or to suppress another fellow Wikipedia editor's beliefs. The only conceivable improvement to the article is to adopt your version wholesale? To believe so was never forbidden. Anyone at any discussion at any Wikipedia article has the right to approach a discussion or a dispute while assuming a world in which s/he is the single neutral editor amongst the many in that particular discussion. That's the most brazen-faced refusal to cooperate that I've ever come across. This is the conclusion of his threat construction; however, this is indicative of the admin's abuse at a second level of discourse: punitive block, which is prohibited by Wikipedia's policies. Where Wikimachine has almost never reverted (in fact, only once in the last 2 weeks, amongst the many of the other editors) in the mainspace, Wikimachine has never disrupted cooperation. Qui tacit consentit. Silence gives consent. This is furthered in Wikipedia's Consensus Policy: Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome.. However, all editors have the right to reserve space for their own proposals or arguments, and to take away that right takes away for the each individual editors to check the balance in the system, and makes abuse (i.e. this) inevitable. Secondly, discussion allows for space for the users to consider the other party's criticism and to reform; a punitive block does not allow for reform, its main aim is to punish a unlikable editor with dissenting opinions (which is one of the few characteristics of Wikipedia that checks its conformist culture & thus abuse, for jurisdiction fairness & education).

Simply, Wimachine's statement, despite all the unsuccessful threat construction & otherization by Future Perfect at Sunrise, is as follows: 1) stop faking cooperative attitude when that has excused & concealed the JPOV's uncooperative stance 2) do not imply that the other party doesn't even know what the dispute is about or that the other party has failed to provide terms for improvement & has been unreasonable (:failure to comply without reason is unreasonable) 3) thus, the repeated terms: the issue with the wording of the intro 4) the intro sentence is the only statement the JPOV finds rejectable. At best this is incivil & if the framework of evaluation for block was WP:CIVILITY then still the incivility is too small to entail a block. Furthermore, an admin cannot define and limit space for uncivil comments too drastically as to disallow the parties the reciprocity for incivility as a response or as a defense against the incivility displayed by another party or else the balance of the power relations in the discourse becomes too one-sided & allows for abuse. Finally, a fair admin must take into account both blatant and indirect assaults, and must forgive a blatant assault that responds to an indirect and implied assault.

Thus we reserve right to test admin's neutrality & the direction of the discussion. The direction of the discussion has been flawed in that it tries to develop upon an already flawed article version moved by force than by consensus. The admin states that the abuse in the past is within the purview of the arbitration committee. Then, the discussion should not continue until the arbitration decides on whether the current version of the article is legitimate. Second, in this dispute, the other party cannot push for the direction the discussion to be based on an article version of which status of validity is ambiguous because the arbitration request also included that the arbitration committee clarify the basis for NPOV (i.e. whether Liancourt Rocks is a situation where it's accepted as a Korean island & Japan disputes it, or it's a Japanese island & Korea disputes it and controls it illegally, or it's one with truly ambiguous status). Because that basis determines how the rest of the article is worded & formatted (i.e. administration box with S. Korea & Japan's administrative registers, "claimed claimed & controlled" vs. "controlled & claimed"). It is important to remember that Wikipedia's NPOV policy does not justify prescription. Wikipedia should describe, not prescribe. If Russia disputed Alaska, the description of the dispute should be that Alaska is a US territory disputed by Russia, not Alaska is a territory claimed by Russia & the US & controlled by the US.

(14:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

Request for review of the dispute at An Jung-geun
Please, this is a perfect evidence on this JPOV vs. KPOV line (JPOV is mostly the provocative side). They will not budge from their defiliing of Korea-related articles. (Wikimachine 21:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC))

Wikimachine
Chill out a little mate. I don't think you are doing yourself any favours by trying to continue the debate here. There is a limit on the amount of words we can use in the discussion, you might prejudice people against you and your viewpoint, by typing here in order to get around the word limit. At the end of the day, someone will read all we have said, there will be a consensus, the page changes or remains and we get on with our lives. Lets take our editing seriously, but spend a little more time editing, and a little less with the drama.Sennen goroshi 15:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)