User:Wikimachine/Arbitration Evidence

Wikimachine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of disruptive behavior, including sustained edit-warring ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]), personal attacks, incivility, and assumptions of bad faith ([10]), refusal to work constructively with other editors ([11], [12]), and repeated attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground along national lines ([13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]).

Edit warring, assumptions of bad faith, and refusal to work constructively w/ others may seem "disruptive" on the surface, but in fact they can be allowed at certain circumstances (i.e. sock puppetry accusations, POV accusations, just as Kirill et al have accused me) & I believe that they were legitimate in those circumstances. The worst I could have been that I should reform are personal attacks (most of which are legit POV & SOCK attacks) & incivility (most of which are responsive to the other side's incivility & provocation).

I repeat, if I were to see Wikipedia as a battleground along national lines, I would have pushed for changes in the mainspace articles; however, all of my disputive edits in the mainspace (and this applies to most of my discussion edits) were responsive to an edit that someone else made. In other words, I almost never started any dispute (except for few WP:RM which were short-lived & unsuccessful) & I easily accepted outcomes from 3rd opinion, WP:RFC, & WP:RM. In conclusion, it's exaggeration to say that I see Wikipedia as a battle line to push my nationalism or that I see Wikipedia as some RPG game where I have fun arguing. I even complained that WikiProject Korea's time & resources are too much drained by these petty disputes. It's just the nature of these articles about other ethnic groups & nationalities - not many people are interested (since most don't speak English) & therefore only those who are interested (large portion of them happens to be POV) come to edit these (i.e. systemic bias). It is inevitable that there be disputes & the evidence that I've participated in these disputes is not indicative of anything. Even Good friend100, Kingj123, etc., and on the (JPOV side, again "relatively speaking" from Liancourt Rocks) Opp2, Sennen goroshi, etc. have been just as engaging (or bad) & especially Opp2 & Sennen goroshi & LactoseTI & Komdori & Macgruder & Endroit etc. have been worse in that they all began these disputes & made changes that were not fully accepted (but they pushed them through revert wars anyways).

To target me and only me when there are other editors much more problematic than and very much POV is a sign of inherently flawed reasoning, bias, & thus discrimination (only allowed in power relations between a non-privileged user & privileged user - i.e. admin, arbitrator, etc.). One must even consider the possibility that these accusations are to cover these worse editors' faults.

Defense vs. Krill's links

The following are all of Krill's links (ev.) of my "disruptive" behavior which I will defend.

An Jung-geun: This was a legitimate revert. Without consensus, changes cannot be put in the article & where LactoseTI has not behaved properly in the past I have the right to assume the worst that the other side is going to push in changes & then delay talks, ignore, or purely argue his/her way.

I'm quite disappointed in Kirill's choice of links above. Clearly an RFC showed that to call An Jung-geun & Yoon Bong-Gil assassin, murderer, terrorist, freedom fighter, etc. is problematic. Any arbitrator can see that the original term "independence activist" would suit very well, although the "compromise" was "Korean nationalist". These are not indicative of anything & they don't depict a clear picture. This dispute was the very dispute that I thought the arbitration committee would consider against the "JPOV" editors. I don't think I have to go further on this one. Just see the previous report: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Liancourt_Rocks/Evidence#Sennen_goroshi. Why, should I stand still on something I definitely disagree on both reasonable & NPOV & factual grounds? No, I disagreed & engaged in the discussion instead; however any arbitrators should know that a dispute takes place while the article is in the previous form. However, they refused to leave it as it was & would have revert war - very indicative of their intention - push their way through with revert & then argue hard core, with complete rejections & bitter compromises. With my past experiences & the obviousness of their POV & intentions, I didn't & I don't have the obligation to assume "good faith" (to some ppl's standards, or is it exaggeration toward a purpose) at that very instance (serves only as prevention to pre-emptory escalations). And we've all heard of it before - making POV or SOCK accusation doesn't mean that someone has bad faith in you, it's just a procedural matter, an accepted procedure for the good of the system in whole. And we all Wikipedians want to preserve that goodness.

Template Talk History of Manchuria: This was a legitimate POV attack.

Again, I won't go further - you can check all the related links to see about the dispute. The arbitrator should have done more research before making such a BIG proposal to ban me (definitely the cards are on my side). 2 RFCs took out the 2 main "CPOV" disputants - Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jiejunkong and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Assault11. They were confirmed to be disruptive & heavily POV - my POV attacks were legitimate.

Talk:Liancourt Rocks - another legitimate POV attack & "don't be a dick" attack (i.e. "agreeing amongst themselves").

Is Kirill saying that I can't even make those accusations? The big question should be whether those accusations were accurate or not - and that entails a complete assessment of all the disputants (not just me) at the Liancourt Rocks article. Only that approach allows the arbitrators to see if my actions (i.e. re-actions per Newton) were legitimate or they were simply results of my bad faith & my own POV. Or else I can only assume that Kirill has some personal grudge against me or that s/he is in some way related to the disputants.

Furthermore, I made the same accusations as the ones above in the request for arbitration page. I wonder why he didn't perceive that in the immediacy as POV, disruptive, & problematic. Kirill within minutes of my submission of request for arbitration rejected on the basis that the arbitration doesn't accept content disputes. This is indicative of how Kirill is not careful in checking past histories.

Very similar except that I say: 1) they cheated (=meta essay above) 2 a) other editors will join discussion & their POV edits will be reverted inevitably 2 b) rationale for my reverts, that I feel obligated to do so 3) don't cheat, or I will refuse to recognize them

Again, until a complete assessment is done what I've said will be double-edged. In my own rights I believe myself to be a neutral editor & as a neutral editor I found much of "their" activities to be illegitimate & my accusations legitimate..

Let me bring this up again, that if I were really pushing my nationalistic bias I would have done so on my own in the main space (a few edits like that in my early years, but I got over with it with age); however I did not, & responded only to the edits that I perceived as POV. Look at Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) (1/2 rewritten by me to fight POV & content issues). I even disagreed with user:Good friend100 and reverted his edits (pretty legitimate b/c he began to ignore me for some reason (he said he "really liked" how there were none of his edits) at Talk:Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598).

This was Good friend's not mine
Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) This was a much older dispute, & was already mentioned by Endroit - it was very appropriate for me to specify that I'd revert until they stop ignoring me & begin talking with me (i.e. don't be a dick meta essay). What's wrong with that? Also, their move to Hideyoshi's Invasions of Korea is very JPOV - the war's basically an extension of Hideyoshi's biography & it's only as important as Hideyoshi? It's like "Hitler's Invasions of Europe". Wow. Their proposal was ridiculous & to bring it up against me is ... wow (Also I didn't "revert" as I threatened b/c they stopped ignoring me.)

Kirill's Talk Page Discussions

1

Hey Kirill, the proposal & your "support" surprise me. So if you think I'm a disruptive editor (if I were to concede that whatever you perceive as disruptive are so & my fault), shouldn't my "good edits" still outweigh? For example, Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598). I'm trying to get that to featured status. Why trash a half-bad apple? Cut the bad side off & eat the good side. In other words, the worst I thought arbs could impose was to prevent me from engaging in edits in Liancourt Rocks. (Wikimachine 00:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for replying.

It's worth noting that, in the FoF regarding you, only a few of the selected diffs are from the Liancourt Rocks matter; a great deal of the evidence points to you pushing a "Japanese versus Korean" or "Chinese versus Korean" view elsewhere.

The alternative, as far as I'm concerned, would have been to ban you from all pages related to East Asia; but, given your editing interests, that would be a ban from the project in all but name. Kirill 00:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Your rationale for the question above is not comprehensive. I don't think my actions entail a ban from East Asia-related articles, and even my actions @ Liancourt Rocks, at best, haven't crossed the line; to translate that somehow into a complete ban is ...

For some reasons, you failed to note Opp2 (w/ very strong ev. of sock puppetry) + others. Even then, Good friend100 & I, on almost all other disputes, have taken similar stances. I'm wondering how you could have made the right calculation & analysis w/o having targeted the worst ones first? When the situation is much more complicated than one caused by a single editor, your proposal is unrealistic.

About the "Us vs. They" ideology, I think that you simply glanced over stuffs w/o making serious efforts to read the content. I could make list of all the disputes I've taken side on in the last 1 year & the reasons behind them. There is no reason to emphasize the risk that I'm pushing the" us vs. them" all by myself (or even amongst others). Simply, those disputes were ridiculous & POVish, and I just took side as any common sensed individual would have. If I were ever mentioning ppl by "CPOV" "JPOV" and "KPOV", I've put nota bene: "this is out of convenience". My edits at Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) prove; I'm neutral. The only risk for provocation & POV lies in editors other than me.

Thanks. (Wikimachine 03:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

Sorry, but no. After nonsense like this, you're simply not going to convince me. Kirill 04:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not indicative of anything. I was simply saying that they were using NPOV to manipulate consensus & "claiming nationality" was one of their way to provide illegitimate litmus test toward an illegitimate NPOV basis. I specifically said (I think in the request for arbitration, not evidence page) that I have no problem with him being Japanese or Korean-hater or anything else. Simply, claiming false nationality for your own POV ends is cheating & I have moral obligation to point that out.

So, I called someone not Korean & that entails a ban? No. You focus on these trivial things & neglect the larger picture. (Wikimachine 20:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

Oh, in case you don't know what a "litmus test" (it's a debate term), basically you offer some standard to compare it with something & see if it's positive or negative (better or worse). So, if Komdori were to claim that he was a Korean & he was arguing against other editors who claim to be Korean on something that has a clear POV issue, then ppl's perception of neutrality changes in the spectrum of what's neutral & what's not. (Wikimachine 20:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC))

2

When I saw that proposal, at first, I kind of doubted my edits; however, the more I look through those disputes, the more I see the injustice in you making that proposal to begin with. Is this some strategic move or what? I think it's about time that you justify your proposals in light of my defenses at the link above. Thanks. (Wikimachine 21:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

You are correct in that one of the diffs points to an edit by another user. My apologies; I have removed it from the finding.

As for the rest: no, "edit warring, assumptions of bad faith, and refusal to work constructively w/ others" are not "allowed at certain circumstances". No, you cannot "make those accusations". And so on and so forth. You seem to be laboring under the impression that you can ignore behavioral policies merely because you happen to be correct on some matter of fact. That is not the case; if you cannot interact appropriately with other editors, it matters not one bit how good your facts are. Kirill 01:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that what you say is really true. You still avoid attempting to defend your accusation against all of my rationale & just justify it at the surface level. That's not enough, and I don't see that as being fair.

Wikipedia's consensus building policy states that when a disagreeable change is made, anyone can revert and discuss about the proposed changes; after consensus is established the changes or compromises are introduced. That applies to your first set of links (i.e. "Korean terrorist" articles).

"edit warring, assumptions of bad faith, and refusal to work constructively w/ others" can be justified at certain times -that's my point. When others are trying to edit war & push their way in, you can edit war on the sole reason that they've violated Wikipedia's consensus building policy. You can assume bad faith when something obviously wrong are happening - such as new accounts popping up (--> sock puppetry?) When the other side refuses to talk to you, or if the other side ignores all of my contentions that they see as disadvantageous for them, or makes these "concessions" that don't matter at the end of the day with their doubly more ridiculous "compromises", I don't have to "work constructively with others" - if by this LactoseTI means "yes, yes, you're right, our king".

My edits and my existence in Wikipedia are reciprocal, I reserve right for them to be reciprocal. Unless you examine other editors more and all closely you can only get a biased view.

When somebody says George Washington was a colonial rebel, & already made edits to the main space & will make ridiculous compromises on talk page but will never agree to what you say, what will you do. Tell me how you can "cooperate constructively". But see that happening on almost every other disputes with the same old guys. And these same old guys start the disputes, they make the edits to begin the disputes. I almost never have in the last 2 years, and in the last year I'm confident I've never done so.

You may not realize but common-sensed people like me have kept the East Asia-related sector of the Wikipedia articles from going really messed up. You must respect my very presence & my willingness to participate in disputes. I deal with all the dirt here -it's all concentrated on me, but that's the evidence you get of how messed up this place is. Maybe I should have been more like the other admins (want me to name some?) & be more ambiguous in disputes while readily going on with edits where easy compromises can be made.

No, you cannot "make those accusations". And so on and so forth. You seem to be laboring under the impression that you can ignore behavioral policies merely because you happen to be correct on some matter of fact. Then what do you have? Is it simply incivility or misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies or really pushing my nationalist wants by making Wikipedia a battle field? If it's incivility, it doesn't entail a block. If it's misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies then you should remind me (but I'm sure I got it down all correct). If it's my POV battling, then that may justify your proposal but this doesn't seem like it. (Wikimachine 03:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC))