Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 11

message: # Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 3#Requested move Dokdo → Liancourt Rocks, result of the debate was move, 2 May 2005
# Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 4#Requested move Liancourt Rocks → Dokdo, result of the debate was move, 1 June 2006
# 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)
thread_title: Requested moves to date

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)
thread_title: Meat Puppetry Data

message: *Reuben - 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= 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)
thread_title: Individual

message: For previous surveys see:
# Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 3#Requested move Dokdo → Liancourt Rocks, result of the debate was move, 2 May 2005
# Talk:Liancourt Rocks/Archive 4#Requested move Liancourt Rocks → Dokdo, result of the debate was move, 1 June 2006
--Philip Baird Shearer 15:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 
Votes by those who have not edited English wikipedia for more than 50 times, by those who entered English Wikipedia within a month and by IP address users are not to be counted.
<noinclude>
====Keep the article at Dokdo====
Please add new comments at the bottom.
#Support local name used by entity in actual possession, arguably most common in English.  (No strong preference between this option and move to Liancourt Rocks). --Reuben 16:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Please add new comments at the bottom.
#Support local name used by entity in actual possession, arguably most common in English.  (No strong preference between this option and move to Liancourt Rocks). --Reuben 16:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep the article at Dokdo

message: Please add new comments at the bottom.
#Support This is my first option as it complies with WP:NPOV --Philip Baird Shearer 16:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move the article back to Liancourt Rocks

message: Please add new comments at the bottom.
#Support It is Japanese territory.--Michael Friedrich 08:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to Takeshima

message: Please add new comments at the bottom.
#Support This is a second option as I don't like a slash in a name (means something in a URL) and which of the two names should come first--Philip Baird Shearer 16:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to  Takeshima/Dokdo

message: Please add new comments at the bottom.
#Support This is a second option as I don't like a slash in a name (means something in a URL) and which of the two names should come first--Philip Baird Shearer 16:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to Dokdo/Takeshima

message: Votes by those who have not edited English wikipedia for more than 50 times, those who entered English wilipedia within a month, and IP address users. These votes should not be counted because they could be sockpuppets.--Michael Friedrich 06:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Invalid Votes

message: #Support I do not like the name "Liancourt Rocks" to be the title of this article because there are already established historical names while Liancourt Rocks do not have any cultural or historical meaning. BombAFT 21:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Invalid Votes for "Keep the article at Dokdo"

message: #Support sadly, per Kusunose and Macgruder Seoyoon 11:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Invalid votes for "Move the article back to Liancourt Rocks"

message: #Support I do not like the name "Liancourt Rocks" to be the title of this article because there are already established historical names while Liancourt Rocks do not have any cultural or historical meaning. I also voted for Dokdo!BombAFT 21:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Invalid votes for "Move the article to Takeshima"

message: The poll has been corrupted by sockpuppets. The 30-40 votes that have appeared for Dokdo within the past few hours should seem to be no coincidence, especially seeing that the vast majority of them are all "first edits". Obviously sockpuppets. Then there's this, which is blatant sock-puppetry (guess he should've remembered he already voted as User:Davidpdx while he was trying to vote again as User:Shkim4dl). When I have the time to file a proper report, I will. Then there's Cyboy7 voting twice in one edit. Clearly this poll is unusable, unless someone wants to go through and remove every single one-time-use "editor" and sock-puppet. This is a bit telling though; the issue starts to go against the Dokdo side, and out roll the sock puppet brigades. Very interesting indeed. Parsecboy 01:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the votes were probably cast by a popular Korean Website Naver.com user who read the Chosun Ilbo's news article.Motivr 02:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like you? Your first edit to en.wikipedia was to vote in this article, even though your account was created almost a year ago. Sounds a little fishy, if you ask me. Parsecboy 02:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. First of all, it is not my first edit. I've had another wikipedia account, and I re-created. And I don't usually log in wikipedia because most of the pages are editable without having to log in. Second of all, I do not think all of the votes were done by socketpuppets. Even if they were first-time users, at least they have rights to express their opinions. just like other users. You should instead blame Naver or the newspaper for the mess.Motivr 02:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well it's lucky you had created your account far enough back (without editing anything) to be able to add your vote to the (now meaningless stage) of the poll.  The page is currently semi-protected for the disruption these users caused and is going through a few spasms as those who are able to dust off pre-aged accounts come out of the woodwork.  --Cheers, Komdori 02:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's obviously socks. Most of the users were created 2-3 weeks ago, to "age" them to get around a partial protection after the initial surge of sock puppets. You forget that Davidpx was negligent enough to expose himself. First time users don't make a beeline for a poll on a controversial but obscure topic. As for you, your account logs speak for themselves. You can say anything you wish, I can choose to believe or not believe you, because you have no proof. I could ask what IP you edit under regularly. You could just as easily pull a random IP or an IP from a local library or school. Parsecboy 02:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand that some of you are very annoyed because this page is getting too much attention then it should. I deeply apologize I didn't edit anything before editing this article.(well, under this account)Motivr 02:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Motivr, thanks for you comment. For many of us, the main issue is 'true' English use. In other words what encyclopedias and media actually call the islands. This is Wikipedia Naming Policy. It important to remove things like 'Takeshima is the name in Japanese, and Dokdo is the name in English' from these counts. From this reasoning some of us feel that Liancourt Rocks turns out to be the most common choice. It's actually not too difficult to check this yourself by going to encyclopedias and news websites. If after checking these out you feel Dokdo is more common in English usage, then fair enough. Macgruder 04:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation. I now understand that many of the votes were invalid not only due to they were first-time edit, but also they were unaware of the naming policy. Motivr 14:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not too much of a problem. All the obvious ones can be removed from the count. Most of the comments say things that are totally nothing to do with Wikipedia naming policy, are unsigned, or give no reason beyond. As above. Those can be removed too because if you are saying 'as above' then you are agreeing with the ones that are outside naming policy. This probably would not apply to the early 'as above' comments. Macgruder 04:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have moved your vote for Takeshima to Invalid Votes as it certainly violates NPOV. I think you should first take a look at this article before anything. WP:NPOV--JWC 09:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am moving it back. Michael Friedrich can express any opinion he wishes in the survey. The whole point of the survey is to try to reach a compromise that everyone can live with. I think it is unfortunate that people are polarising on just two options without supporting simultaneously other options which might lead to a compromise. For example as the Dokdo supporters are now in a minority, I would have thought that expressing  simultaneous suport for Dokdo/Takeshima would be in their interest. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If my vote were to be moved to "Invalid Votes", all of the votes for Dokdo would be moved to "Invalid Votes" because they certainly violates NPOV. I believe "Liancourt Rocks" is the most NPOV. This is English wikipedia. It does not matter whether the Koreans of the Japanese know the word "Liancourt Rocks" or not. Even CIA uses "Liancourt Rocks" in its documents. "Liancourt Rocks" is suitable for English Wikipedia. --Michael Friedrich 10:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If I'm not mistaken, the page is still semi-protected.  There hasn't really been any flood by any group of editors since that got turned on (at least, not like when that news article first hit this unprotected page).  I don't see any increase in the number of invalid/non-established editors voting for Liancourt Rocks... on what are you basing your idea? (After re-reading, I think perhaps I misunderstood your comment, maybe you were commenting on the fact that the Liancourt Rocks option hasn't experienced the same level of flooding yet as the Dokdo option, which may be due to the semi-protection.  It was extended, incidently, so don't look for a flood on any option to start for a bit).  --Cheers, Komdori 17:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are obviously POV, saying that the number of votes for "Liancourt Rocks" is ok. One user has voted twice and almost all the new editors have not been participating in Wikipedia and have made very few edits before. Good friend100 17:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now watch the good faith.  Are you saying that since a large number of established editors happened to vote for an option you don't support that it's obviously incorrect?  Please point out editors who have less than 50 edits or are duplicates.  Sorry, I didn't see a duplicate, I'll look again, though it would have just been simpler if you stated who it was rather than just make a bad faith assumption about me knowing it and not doing anything about it. --Cheers, Komdori 17:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see that any have been removed since you posted.  You made it sound like I knew about a duplicate vote and did nothing, but I guess in reality there was no duplicate vote when you posted.  Single purpose accounts are still being moved from both sides as they trickle in.  I'm sorry I just don't see the source of the obvious bile. --Cheers, Komdori 17:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably don't. I am ending this discussion because we cannot regard the poll to assert anything. As Mr. Parsecboy said, its ruined. Good friend100 18:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not so, evidently the same issues had to be dealt with last time around, although they originated from some Japanese editors that time.  We can also evaluate the arguments being made.  As the notice says, "This is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether the name of this page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and decisions to move articles are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes." --Cheers, Komdori 18:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This poll is ruined