Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Meat Puppet Data

message: See Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 11
::And yes, there is plenty of space here & I notice that there have been efforts to shut everything out from the discussion & allocate them into the archive or outside pages - as an effort to shut out dissenting opinions. ("dissent" somebody brought that up) (Wikimachine 22:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm trying to delete the link to the meat puppetry, which means that the admin can return to his previous conclusion. (Wikimachine 22:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I really detest how you're trying to shut everything up. No, what I'm doing is completely inherent part of Wikipedia procedure. In fact, admin Hudson recommended that I present him an evidence challenging the possibility of meat puppetry. (Wikimachine 22:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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). —LactoseTIT 18:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text:  The admin asked for evidence of meatpuppet/sockpupetry on the Liancourt Rocks group, not the Dokdo group.  While Reuben did vote for Liancourt Rocks, he appears to be the only one.  How does this relate?  I personally doubt you'll come up with any of the evidence you were asked to provide, and regardless, the decision was primarily made on NPOV issues.  Did you discount the users who had no reason or invalid reasons for their vote on either side?  I believe this affects a great number of voters for Dokdo. --Cheers, Komdori 17:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't the accusation on the Dokdo group? Then shouldn't it be logical for me to defend the Dokdo group? I'm not quite sure if he meant that. No. I don't think that there is meat puppetry going on from the Liancourt Rocks side. (Wikimachine 17:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great, then we can close the discussion.  The closing admin had suggested that if there had been massive vote fraud on the Liancourt Rocks maybe it wouldn't have been as fair of an expression of all the editors and admins who expressed support for it as it was.  I believe he was looking for something concrete and objective rather than subjective musings about editors in general (at least one or more who also voted for Liancourt Rocks). Put another way, if we had an RM to move it back today, still at best a superminority of valid votes would wind up expressing support to move it, a far cry from consensus. --Cheers, Komdori 19:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the move to Liancourt Rocks itself was based on "a far cry from consensus". I'm not asking for an RM back; I'm simply asking thea admin to overturn his decision. (Wikimachine 02:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protest

message: *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.  
*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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Ginnre's are also only regarding disputes b/w Japan and Korea. --Cheers, Komdori 20:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Invalid votes for Liancourt Rocks

message: 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?  , , , , etc. 
(Wikimachine 20:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes, I still see no link between inappropriateness & definite evidence of effective meat puppetry. (Wikimachine 20:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  The admin asked for evidence of meatpuppet/sockpupetry on the Liancourt Rocks group, not the Dokdo group.  While Reuben did vote for Liancourt Rocks, he appears to be the only one.  How does this relate?  I personally doubt you'll come up with any of the evidence you were asked to provide, and regardless, the decision was primarily made on NPOV issues.  Did you discount the users who had no reason or invalid reasons for their vote on either side?  I believe this affects a great number of voters for Dokdo. --Cheers, Komdori 17:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't the accusation on the Dokdo group? Then shouldn't it be logical for me to defend the Dokdo group? I'm not quite sure if he meant that. No. I don't think that there is meat puppetry going on from the Liancourt Rocks side. (Wikimachine 17:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great, then we can close the discussion.  The closing admin had suggested that if there had been massive vote fraud on the Liancourt Rocks maybe it wouldn't have been as fair of an expression of all the editors and admins who expressed support for it as it was.  I believe he was looking for something concrete and objective rather than subjective musings about editors in general (at least one or more who also voted for Liancourt Rocks). Put another way, if we had an RM to move it back today, still at best a superminority of valid votes would wind up expressing support to move it, a far cry from consensus. --Cheers, Komdori 19:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the move to Liancourt Rocks itself was based on "a far cry from consensus". I'm not asking for an RM back; I'm simply asking thea admin to overturn his decision. (Wikimachine 02:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Meat Puppetry Data

message: =====Users with less than 100 edits=====
*Wikiment
*Intmotinf
*Tean91
*Merumerume
*Hohonn
=====Users who joined this year=====
*Cydevil38
*Jjisr
=====Users w/ Goguryeo Bird Sign @ user space=====
*Oyo321
*Easternknight
*
=====Users w/ proclaimed POV stance @ user pages=====
*Ginnre
*Oyo321
*DandanxD
=====Users w/o user pages=====
*Wikiment
*Intmotinf
*Hohonn
*Remort
=====Users who edited on Korea primarily=====
*Reuben
*Janviermichelle
*Kingj123
*Good friend100
*Wikiment
*Ginnre
*Cydevil38
*melonbarmonster
*Oyo321
*WonYong
*Jjisr
*Alfpooh
*Easternknight
*DandanxD
*Sydneyphoenix
*Hohonn
* —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)
replies: text:  The admin asked for evidence of meatpuppet/sockpupetry on the Liancourt Rocks group, not the Dokdo group.  While Reuben did vote for Liancourt Rocks, he appears to be the only one.  How does this relate?  I personally doubt you'll come up with any of the evidence you were asked to provide, and regardless, the decision was primarily made on NPOV issues.  Did you discount the users who had no reason or invalid reasons for their vote on either side?  I believe this affects a great number of voters for Dokdo. --Cheers, Komdori 17:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't the accusation on the Dokdo group? Then shouldn't it be logical for me to defend the Dokdo group? I'm not quite sure if he meant that. No. I don't think that there is meat puppetry going on from the Liancourt Rocks side. (Wikimachine 17:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great, then we can close the discussion.  The closing admin had suggested that if there had been massive vote fraud on the Liancourt Rocks maybe it wouldn't have been as fair of an expression of all the editors and admins who expressed support for it as it was.  I believe he was looking for something concrete and objective rather than subjective musings about editors in general (at least one or more who also voted for Liancourt Rocks). Put another way, if we had an RM to move it back today, still at best a superminority of valid votes would wind up expressing support to move it, a far cry from consensus. --Cheers, Komdori 19:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the move to Liancourt Rocks itself was based on "a far cry from consensus". I'm not asking for an RM back; I'm simply asking thea admin to overturn his decision. (Wikimachine 02:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statistical Data

message: *Reuben
*Janviermichelle
*Kingj123
*Good friend100
*Wikiment
*Ginnre
*Cydevil38
*melonbarmonster
*Oyo321
*WonYong
*Jjisr
*Alfpooh
*Easternknight
*DandanxD
*Sydneyphoenix
*Hohonn
* —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)
replies: text:  The admin asked for evidence of meatpuppet/sockpupetry on the Liancourt Rocks group, not the Dokdo group.  While Reuben did vote for Liancourt Rocks, he appears to be the only one.  How does this relate?  I personally doubt you'll come up with any of the evidence you were asked to provide, and regardless, the decision was primarily made on NPOV issues.  Did you discount the users who had no reason or invalid reasons for their vote on either side?  I believe this affects a great number of voters for Dokdo. --Cheers, Komdori 17:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't the accusation on the Dokdo group? Then shouldn't it be logical for me to defend the Dokdo group? I'm not quite sure if he meant that. No. I don't think that there is meat puppetry going on from the Liancourt Rocks side. (Wikimachine 17:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great, then we can close the discussion.  The closing admin had suggested that if there had been massive vote fraud on the Liancourt Rocks maybe it wouldn't have been as fair of an expression of all the editors and admins who expressed support for it as it was.  I believe he was looking for something concrete and objective rather than subjective musings about editors in general (at least one or more who also voted for Liancourt Rocks). Put another way, if we had an RM to move it back today, still at best a superminority of valid votes would wind up expressing support to move it, a far cry from consensus. --Cheers, Komdori 19:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But the move to Liancourt Rocks itself was based on "a far cry from consensus". I'm not asking for an RM back; I'm simply asking thea admin to overturn his decision. (Wikimachine 02:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Users who edited on Korea primarily