Wikimachine (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Wikimachine (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
:*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liancourt_Rocks&diff=prev&oldid=155232990 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 |
:*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liancourt_Rocks&diff=prev&oldid=155232990 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. |
|||
Let me bring this up again, that if I were really pushing my nationalistic bias I would have done so 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. 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)]]. |
Revision as of 23:50, 11 October 2007
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.
Let me bring this up again, that if I were really pushing my nationalistic bias I would have done so 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. 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).