Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 12

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Liancourt Rocks/Archive 12 article.
Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A Descriptive Header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions. Please note this is not a forum for discussing the topic generally.	Talk page guidelines Please respect etiquette and assume good faith. Also be nice and remain civil.

Korean: unstable; Hanja: medium

Requested moves to date

1. Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 3#Requested move Dokdo → Liancourt Rocks, result of the debate was move, 2 May 2005
2. Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 4#Requested move Liancourt Rocks → Dokdo, result of the debate was move, 1 June 2006
3. Talk:Dokdo/Archive 10#Requested Move May 2007 Dokdo → Liancourt Rocks, result of the debate was no move, 28 May 2007 --Philip Baird Shearer 09:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

   Addendum: This discussion has been reviewed and overturned by the closing admin. Result of the debate after revision was move to "Liancourt Rocks".--Húsönd 16:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

4. Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 11#Requested Move May 2007 Dokdo → Liancourt Rocks, result of the debate was move, 28 May 2007

--Philip Baird Shearer 22:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Protest

Admins, now, are you going to characterize Koreans as cheaters just because of a newspaper article that just happened to bring some invalid votes? You're taking this too one-sidedly. How many invalid votes from the current 43 to 28 etc. can you spell out? How does just 1 vote matter that much? Or have you guys been boiling to move the article to Liancourt Rocks no matter what? (Wikimachine 17:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

And I don't understand. How can it be consensus at 62.5%? That's not some majority vote, and no admin said it. Endroit is not an admin. I disagree with the fact that there is a consensus. I disagree. Then that makes no consensus here. (Wikimachine 17:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Look WP:Consensus. I don't even think that the admins understand what consensus means in Wikipedia. "Over time, every edit that remains on a page, in a sense, has the unanimous approval of the community (or at least everyone who has looked at the page)." "Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome." (Wikimachine 17:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Endroit, how can JWC's vote be vandalism? That's not even sock puppetry. This is so POV & moved along a tacitly agreed program that I can't even stand it. I'll make sure to go through all invalid votes & find valid ones. (Wikimachine 17:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

All right, they had less than 50 edits, but I don't necessarily see them as works of S. Korean netizens. I still detest heavily this tacitly organized movement of the masses. (Wikimachine 17:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

For those that care, the article I posted here that on the Korean community portal as early as 5/22 was indeed another canvas/meatpuppet attempt. This one contained sentences "like 'please take an interest' and 'the day after tomorrow will be too late.' It also includes the usual stock defense for meatpuppetry and the like, namely 'the Chinese and Japanese are doing it already.'" (Translations thanks to Visviva after I requested some clarification from him). —LactoseTI^T 18:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

But what does that lead us to? How does that relate in any way to meat puppetry? You don't have enough warrants to accuse valid voters of meat puppetry. (Wikimachine 19:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

It's related because it's the very definition of meat puppetry. Look at WP:MEAT#Advertising_and_soliciting_meatpuppets. --Cheers, Komdori 20:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Invalid votes for Liancourt Rocks

• user:Opp2 - He has less than 50 edits outside of talk:Dokdo. It has been long discussed in the previous dispute that Opp2 could be a sock puppet. [1][2]
• user:Panpulha - He has less than 50 edits before his vote at Liancourt Rocks.
• user:Robert Houdini - He had exactly 50 edits before his vote at Liancourt Rocks. Around 10 edits were made during the poll.

(Wikimachine 17:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Ok. What I'm so frustrated about now is that Endroit et al tried so hard to pick out invalid votes for Dokdo, but obviously they let some "slip in" for Liancourt Rocks. This is unforgivable. (Wikimachine 17:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

40/68 = 0.58823529411764705882352941176471. And nobody agreed that 62.5% was enough for consensus. I say this is ridiculous. Is it right that I have the right to test consensus by reverting the move? (Wikimachine 17:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Are you planning to do this for the Dokdo people as well? People like Ginnre have fewer than 50 edits outside of Dokdo as well. --Cheers, Komdori 18:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. Why don't you do it. Wikimachine 19:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

And no, Ginnre has more than 50 edits. I wasn't emphasizing the fact that people should have more than 50 edits just outside of Dokdo. But from personal experience, Opp2 edited ONLY on Dokdo. That's the problem. (Wikimachine 19:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

This is so well arranged, that, in fact, I think the Wiki Kim whatever guy at that portal was not a Korean. (Wikimachine 19:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Is it correct that those who disagree may test consensus by reverting the move? I don't want any 3RR, etc., but if it is commonplace in Wikipedia, I'd like to revert. (Wikimachine 19:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

It is clear that such a move is not uncontroversial. You can move it by establishing consensus and posting a RM. If no one changes their mind here, you'd need around 60 or so additional people for the name "Dokdo" to swing it the other way by the same percentage without any additional votes for Liancourt Rocks. I might mention you should not be counting the votes that had no reasons/were just signatures, or who had reasons not referencing any visible policy (although I didn't factor that into the additional number you'd need). --Cheers, Komdori 19:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Opp2 has more edits outside of Liancourt Rocks than Ginnre. For example, see his edits on the talk pages of Battle of Chingshanli and Rusk documents. --Cheers, Komdori 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm.. They're all anti-Korean & nationalistic & in anyway related to disputes b/w Japan & Korea. I'll verify that myself. (Wikimachine 20:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Ginnre's are also only regarding disputes b/w Japan and Korea. --Cheers, Komdori 20:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Meat Puppetry Data

I'll provide a detailed analysis defending meat puppetry accusation against valid voters. But first, let me test the realism of the scenario behind those Korean portal mobilizations.

• The valid voters have been around in Wikipedia for a while. If they were meat puppets, they would have voted at Liancourt Rocks no matter what.
• The posts and newspaper articles began to appear around 3 days after the beginning of the poll. Only 13 voters voted at or after May 25.
• Most voters voted at the last poll.
• Most wrote some sort of English. None display any defficiency in the English language.
• All voters with less than 50 edits have been re-allocated to invalid votes. I myself checked through most of the valid voters, and they were around in Wikipedia long before the dispute.
• JPOV posts also appear in Google... or those that appear to counter KPOV posts. Something I don't like is how JPOV editors here take a Chosun Ilbo article just mentioning the facts as an effort by the Korean press to collectively maintain the status quo at Dokdo? What kind of image do you have of S. Korea? Don't you know that Chosun Ilbo also released the same article in Japanese? [3], [4], [5], [6], etc.

(Wikimachine 20:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Oh, so they also canvassed Koreans living in Japan? Anyway, read WP:MEAT#Advertising_and_soliciting_meatpuppets. I might add that you don't show anything on the level of Yahoo news, etc. Arguing about that is somewhat arguing about semantics, though--one instance of canvassing literally millions of people was tied directly to an editor voting multiple times for Dokdo. You can beat to death whether or not you think this really had a lot of an effect (probably did), but in any case this is not just a head count. You yourself made the arguments that admin votes were especially good to look at--and as I predicted, they all came down for the Liancourt Rocks term, since it was better according to the policies. --Cheers, Komdori 20:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I still see no link between inappropriateness & definite evidence of effective meat puppetry. (Wikimachine 20:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

Individual

• Reuben[7][8] - a reliable editor, he joined on September of 2004. His interests range from Korea to physics (Dark Matter), and biographies of scientists (i.e. Dennis William Sciama).
• Janviermichelle[9][10]= another reliable editor who joined on May of 2006. His total edits currently is 2236. His main interests rest in Korea and Buddhism.
• —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikimachine (talk • contribs).

Don't tell me you are going to pick apart every editor on this page... do it on your own talkpage or in your userspace and link to it. This talk page fills up fast enough as it is. --Cheers, Komdori 20:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikimachine - have you considered that in addition to the results of the poll, admin Husond moved the article also because he felt that it would make the article name NPOV? I don't think these polls are supposed to be binding anyway. They are only supposed to be used to survey opinions. Articles still need to be edited and named according to policies. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)