Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case
To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

My past disputes & proposal for ban
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post it here, but since this is related to the proposal itself I think I may (if not, please move it to the talk page at the arbitration evidence page).

See User:Wikimachine/Arbitration_Evidence. (Wikimachine 21:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

So far, 3 ppl have voted for the proposal concerned. Kirill - out of whim & 2 others, following the crowd. I'm very disappointed at how the arbitration committee has responded. Especially on such serious proposals on an editor who's been around for 2 years & have been very productive & neutral, the arbitrators should check more into my edit history, etc. & read all of my justifications - at the very least they should answer & reply to my justifications. Or else this is simply mistreatment (it's like they think they don't need to talk to a nationalist POV when I'm not & however the 2 I'm trying to communicate with haven't done a good job replying to all I've said. (Wikimachine 20:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

Punitive ban
Wikipedia's policies do not allow a punitive ban, the only justification toward the measures is to ensure smooth-running of the system. The ban should be none or complete - not "1 year". That is punitive - or else, it should be a short-term "block". Punitive, in the sense that the ban offers the banned users a certain length of time to "reform". (Wikimachine 20:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

Finally
It just seems that all the arbitrators entrusted user evaluation to Kirill & ended it there - going with the crowd. Personally, I don't really have much to lose by getting out of Wikipedia for 1 year or more - soon I'll be going to college & I have much more fun games to play. However, approval of this proposal means 1) my efforts here for the last 2 years have not been recognized 2) the arbitration is giving in to POV, sock puppetry, & bigotry that I've been resisting against all through in the last months of my editing.

Also, I admit that my earlier edits have had some nationalistic bias - but most of them were in the talk pages & they didn't do much harm. Those edits were at the worst "childish" - I already explained to Endroit in the evidence page that I've changed a lot over the years I've been here b/c I've been growing up & learning my own faults. I don't like how Kirill Lokshin is inflating his evidence by including edits from very long ago - including the naming dispute at Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea (--> Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598)). Also, please look at Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598). I understand completely that the East Asia-related sector of the English Wikipedia is completely messed up with too many vandals, POVs, sock puppetry, & ppl with good intention who can't write. In order to fight this systemic bias (the reason why I am at WikiProject Countering systemic bias) I've set my focus away from these disputes (this was about 1 year ago) & began by making Ahn Eak-tai a good article (before then I wrote 2 "OK" articles), and now set to make Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) a featured article - having worked on it for more than 1/2 year. I've gone to the main city library to get the books, got access to research web sites, etc. to get neutral English sources & spent many countless hours working on the article. And I aimed to cite every factual statement - or else you really can't tell if something's POV or it's really true. This is especially true in East Asia-related articles - ppl came in everyday writing junks (however, it seems that the current professional look of the article scares them away) & you can't tell if it's true or not.

Again, take a look at Kirill Lokshin's talk page (soon to be archived) - how weak Kirill's attacks are on my "nationalistic bias" and my attempt to make Wikipedia "a battleground". They were reduced to at the worst incivility & misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies. This is very disappointing - the arbitration committee should be more comprehensive in its review when it attempts to make such drastic measures as to "ban" someone. (Wikimachine 21:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

checkuser
Also, please do checkuser on all the users who have edited on these disputes (not just Liancourt Rocks). I have a convenient link - checkuser for Opp2 that was declined on the reason that the arbitration would perform it. It'd kind of ridiculous for Kirill Lokshin to target me first when there are some very obvious trouble makers who do nothing more than participate in disputes. (i.e. user:Opp2 & user:Macgruder w/ virtually no other productive edits than his JPOV disputes on Liancourt Rocks & similarly for user:Komdori and user:LactoseTI except that they have some bot edits). (Wikimachine 20:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC))