User talk:Yenamare

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Yenamare (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

that's really nice and all to have an actually related case, to an actual account, but see mind you that this is my only other account. It was only created because my other one was blocked. I was just going around wikipedia, saw an article that I always read, looking weird. Went down to the bottom of it, and found out a bunch of accounts are editing and deleting stuff, and no one is succeeding at stopping them. I read further and I undid reviews that started editwars on articles; but yeah, I guess I should've read the content. I just thought the format looked better at first glance you know. And random86 started to look like a troll, so I tried to contact administrators about it. However, whoosh! I suddenly get a notice of being a master sockpuppet; whatever that meant. So I look it up, and it doesn't apply, so I go for the quick automated unblock ( at least I thought it was) But the administrators that got me stuck there, couldn't perceive how I was unrelated to the accused socks (thanks to you guys I learned a lot of stuff from wiki, from being blocked that is), I got defaulted on the list unjustly, then for lack of proof, I had to be the puppetmaster right?

What do you expect me to do? Just lay low, and pretend I didn't get my favorite username stolen from me? No, I just abandoned it, cancelled my email association with it, and created a new accoun where I can figure out, which people are pulling strings, because it's way to weird that the same names I saw in the edit history, were the same people attacking me on the masta wu incident, completely unrelated, so by me they had to be related. I was again browsing through articles, and found the same people I'd interacted with or that I'd seen interactions from, preparing to merge and delete articles, I just looked at the articles and I thought they were fined, so I opposed the merge. But one of the users that always comment together, replied with an 'agree' post, without any reason , except saying that it is the same as the person who proposed the deletion/merge. So of course I freaked out, there's one mastermind person, controlling a bunch of other accounts, or even a group of people congregating against any opposition they may get. And I just researched based on that theory, and submitted the investigation page after I had enough evidence that there is something weird going on, because only they get their way, even thought this is a wiki site.

This isn't a sock puppet, I didn't even know what that was until 4 days ago ( where conveniently I was added to an already existing case, and conveniently made responsible). This is a new account, I haven't made edits with the other, I can't. I never had two or more functional accounts at the same time. Tell me please how the incident with editing was sock puppetry, and how this is too, or even more, how I instigated all of this.

I hope the IP stuff isn't blocked. I don't know how that works but this is a university network, many people will be using it, I don't think each user account has an IP, it's generally each computer, or the internet or wifi itself right?

Decline reason:

"It was only created because my other one was blocked." That's not permitted, and accounts created to evade a block will themselves be blocked. If we got the original block wrong, please make an unblock request with that account. However, I'll have to note that your own edits right from the start were extremely hostile and did not contribute to a collaborative editing environment, at times bordering on outright trolling. Even if we got the sockpuppetry wrong, you'd have to modify your conduct significantly if you want to resume editing Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

this was already in editing process before administrator reply

I submitted a pretty elaborate and valid, super valid and elaborate, sockpuppetry investigation page. But suddenly, right after I did, I got blocked and it was deleted. I think that's a bit, not cool, like, not cool at all. At least go through the process of saying that it was proven untrue, I want proof. I only like proof; I think these kinds of decisions need concrete proof. Or was I onto something. I'm sorry but, all the data I gathered in the mere 5 or so hours it took to write the investigation and add links to it, really pointed out stuff. I was actually in the process of adding more data, links and thoughts about how certain users might seem independent, but not quite so. Of course, I still have the data. Takes too long to write, to not get paranoid at the possibility that I 'close window' instead of 'minimize'.

On a side note, Admin DoRD, I hope one of your reasons for deleting the investigation page wasn't because you think many of those users are veterans. I did say that they were in the data, but one mustn't be biased to seniority vs rookieness vs justice. It's a question of rules, not of how many pages were edited, or for how many years spent being part of the community. One of the important values I read about today as part of the 'wiki guidelines' pack, was neutrality. I might be wrong, but it really does seem, from my point of view, that I'm being attacked personally for having different views, and an outsider neutrality. [This shares similarity with the Zimbardo experiment! :D ]

I haven't exhausted the list of rules in a mere hours, (still relatively new here), so there might have been better categories to report that sort of tailgating activity I observed, but I wouldn't know. For one, this whole system is very complicated to deal with, trying to work with it for the first time is the best way to productively procrastinate on writing your final paper.

Once you read this, anyone. Just leave me a message. I like constructive conversations.

Please don't start posting links to project guidelines as rule references, I read too many already for one day; all-nighter here. Let's talk it out, whatever it is~

Stuff on top is part of posting conflict with administrator reply that happened right before I could post the update

stuff on bottom is after reply

@Huon Not "if", you are wrong. The IP check thingy didn't show a check between me and the other users. I updated the text to convey my reasons, hopefully it does. Even if not then I'll try to explain further.

You said edits were hostile, of course, I didn't know your rules or anything, or even if such thing existed, wikipedia is information, not people; that's how it is to the majority of the world out there. I just knew that one user is being hostile to everyone else who edits pages related to Korea. That came up as very anti-fan to me. But then I noticed someone was changing the extensive list on Kpop artists based on what (it seemed like) was their personal preference masked under something they kept on repeating as 'notability', (whatever that meant) <- to me at the time, because there was never any reference to any reason why something was or not, notable. Also, I researched further and found out that even on online forums, people were talking about wikipedia anti-kpop movement. I totally thought it was for real. Of course I panicked and went in and undid everything that those "random people who now nothing about kpop or the scene" edited. It says nowhere for eyes to see, that you can't do that. To me, they were doing what you call "vandalism". Who knew wikipedia had a whole system behind it? People can come in and edit whenever, I didn't take them seriously for sure, and just made sure to eliminate edits from people who to me, where trolling kpop articles as anti-fans disguised as "helpers"; that's scary.

Say, are you familiar with kpop? Fan wars get pretty ugly. To me, the user random86 and all the others that seem like puppets were just destroying information from kpop pages, that I really think were under-represented in the first place. And I also found their reasons very rude, and that they didn't make sense. One doesn't go up to a fan and tell them their artist is not notable... I thought the way they were answering to others, rude, so it didn't seem like I could have constructive conversation with them either; I also thought they were trolls.

But then they started posting what I saw as threats, to my page, something called 3 revert rule, editwarring, (these sound very unofficial mind you). I just cleared them from my page, and got annoyed that it stayed in history. I started looking up what those words meant and thought they were crazy for reporting me for doing what I thought was saving the articles from trolls, so I contacted administrators, and page owners (never got answers from the last ones). But then the administrator I contacted, @Berean Hunter, instead of actually trying to help, just said I was a sock puppet, or a sockpuppet master, (whatever that meant)<-- didn't know at the time either. I laughed at this little conversation going on behind my back, and really thought it was all silly and pointless because I didn't even know what they were accusing me of, and didn't care to know, because for one, I didn't legitimize wikipedia as a people platform, for two, I briefly looked it up and I wasn't involved in what they were trying to involve me.

But yeah, it really hit me that these people were being for real, when I got the notice that I was blocked, and this is the comment from the person I asked to 'help', "Moved case to Kazandre who I believe is the master based on behavior and indeffing."(whatever that means to) I still don't know the reason for that, or what indeffing is, if that's a word.

So yeah, that bothered me, not so much the ban, but the reason. If you have grounds for that, sure sure, but really "master based behavior" ? That's some next level schwartz right there.

Eventually, it bothered me so much that I procrastinated on a 15 page final essay to try and delete that account, get a new one and try an make sense into this. In the process, I learned lots of "rules" , still don't know thousands probably. But the random86 issue still is unsolved for me. I don't understand at alllll, what is going on on that side. The rest I get. But it is put nowhere obvious, like on the sign-in page, or your blocked-user page, that you can't create another user when you're blocked. That's the first time I'm ever blocked in my life, and I think such a thing should be told upfront. Not here after the fact.

Like seriously, I don't like not understanding things, can I have @random86 to explain this whole Korea project and not letting other people act, or giving time, or just putting a notice for update to the page so that it can be expanded and added to, when their's potential for that. Even give an expiration date , like 3 months, or 1. People are busy, especially the kpop demography, most of them are teenagers that are stanning groups and paying attention to other things. If you really want people to edit and fix, just ay so. Don't reply with stuff like "source" or "link", you come off rude, and anti-fan that will delete everything the first chance they get.

Like, on the first paragraph after the page name. Add a statement that this article will be deleted in x months unless it is updated, I think that will get the attention of many people. I , as a representative of general k-fans (however I don't stan any group in particular, just like good music wherever it comes from), I can tell you that I don't look at the banner on the page or whatever is under that before the article's title. You have to put information where people will find it easily, otherwise, it's going to come off as iff you don't want people to. This project is very obscure in terms of popularity among the target reader demographic. you have to think of who will read these articles, it's mainly fans. They have lots of information, they will post it if you ask, they are human. And they will add sources, (put that in the notice because it comes off mean no matter what). You and all these other users that I don't understand either, will be then free to edit unconstructive sources. Seriously, it's harsh to just delete the info though, that's time and effort right there. When they add it without the source, I guess you would have to ask them for it. But seriously though, delete should be last option, after no one has complied or replied for a long time, like 2 months. It's cheating if people from the same project or that are friends or whatever you guys are, congregate to delete and stuff.

You probably want to do this quick and update and stuff, I suggest you just reach out to more people. So many communities of people just waiting to type stuff about artists they stanned. Also, secondary sources can also be the writer's analyze, and or opinion, by the guidelines, it's based off the original sources. The writer should just refrain from as much bias as possible. Nobody is unbiased, if they think they are then they aren't.

Anyways, I haven't read over this. Very long, will probably edit later, but this is off the heart. [over 24 hr no sleep, wow, could've written my 15 page during that time]--Yenamare (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

,