Akari Kanzaki

Akari, don't listen to the people accusing you of "vandalism" for unredirecting an article — that's a common tactic some people use. And don't listen to the people saying the information belongs over at xenosaga.wikia.com either. You'll probably stay blocked for violating WP:3RR since you made 4 reverts within 24 hours at Ziggurat 8 [1]. You were just outnumbered by Kung Fu Man, Pagrashtak, Marasmusine, A Man In Black, and also Jamesontai after Pagrashtak notified WikiProject Video games. Don't let them get to you. There's no merge discussion at all over at Talk:List of characters in the Xenosaga series. When your block expires you're welcome to comment at WT:FICT, WT:WAF, and WT:N. --Pixelface (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What will visiting these places do for me? And I'm glad someone else sees that this is happening. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 04:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you ask, those last ones are policies/guidelines Wikipedia is grounded on. Right now WP:FICT is under discussion to be re-promoted to a guideline and anyone is welcome to voice their opinion.じんない 04:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm used to people knowing the ropes, and tend to assume they do. The offer to unblock was sincere, because I realized that you weren't a political partisan in one of WP's oldest internal political debates, just some new person who wanted to write some articles on something you think is interesting. You didn't get blocked because you were ganged up on by a bunch of horrible people; you got blocked because you ran into the three revert rule, called the "3RR" by the acronym-happy sorts around here. If you revert an article four times within 24 hours, bzzt, you get blocked for a day. This isn't license to revert war (constantly changing an article back to your preferred version), just a hard limit on how fierce a revert war can get. That said, you shouldn't have been blocked; part of enforcing the 3RR is first alerting people to its presence, and warnings to stop vandalizing (you weren't) aren't that. I wasn't as politic about offering to unblock as I should've been. Sorry 'bout that, I'm not much for couching things well to people who are angry. Rest assured that there's no black mark on your record, and no sword hanging over your head just because you disagreed with someone. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me jump in and say I'm sorry for the way things have turned out. For the record, I only reverted your first unmerge and would not have edit warred you into breaking 3RR. I don't know what your thoughts are on the discussion we're having on the Video game project page, but I've seen the exact same arguments going back and forth dozens of times in the past, over video game characters, fictional weapons, episodes of television programs, and any other article that attracts plot-based or fictional information. It may be new to you, but I was simply too tired to go into that one-on-one with you, as I've done so many times in the past, trying to explain Wikipedia:Notability and eventually ending up arguing its merits. Even if I had convinced you, I'd just have to do the same thing in a few months when another editor unmerged as you did. Feeling that we needed a better solution than this perpetual cycle, I posted a message to the VG project in hopes that we could find a better process. Instead, it's devolved into what it is and ended up getting you blocked. Pagrashtak 15:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about your Wikipedia batism by fire...

		The Purple Star
		I'm sorry you were blocked without really knowing how Wikipedia works. Hopefully you'll stay around, learn how things work, and try to improve articles, guidelines and policies you don't agree with. —じんない 04:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Confrontational

"Save my last post, I was not being confrontational with anyone."

This seems to conflict with making accusations such as:

• "These users have been around a long time, and neither one of them honestly care about the articles in question."
• "There are two editors circling over those pages, and they will attack anyone who defends this point of view."
• "Quite some time ago, the users in question successfully tried to start a fight by visiting every single page in relation to this series and changing the title capitalization from "ARMs" to "Arms"."

You are accusing other editors of ganging up on and beating down opposition, including getting them blocked. These accusations are no less serious for their vague and sweeping nature, and yes, they are pretty confrontational especially since you started things off with words to the effect of "They're going to ban me for disagreeing, but..."

I am trying really hard to see you in a decent light, but you are making it exceptionally difficult for me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

These two users were not part of the discussion, and it is true. Have you not seen Erigu's attacks on me? She even left a flame on this page, though I deleted it. And now she is trying to get me banned. All of those statements refer to Erigu and her friend Mr. T(Based). Can you deny my claim? The minute anyone brings up or supports "ARMs"-and not even just that issue-that person is targeted by them. They are accused without reason, attacked for everything they do or even don't do like someone, and then falsely banned by one of her admin friends. Their IPs are vastly different-you can see it in some of the cases, and you can even confirm it with the admin of a Wild ARMs forum that most of those users activated. As a result over 19 different people have been banned. And just as I said, the minute one of those two was made aware that the argument had been revived by me, thanks to Jinnai's well-meaning post, I was attacked and marked for being banned. If you disbelieve me, try having a friend bring up the discussion some time after I've been banned, and see if they are not targeted and banned as some duplicate account. Of course, you'll know your friend isn't a duplicate account, but they'll still be banned. That's one way to win fights on Wiki. Let me make one thing clear-Erigu has only played about five minutes of ONE Wild ARMs game. She has admitted this much. Why do you think she only pays attention to the page when this argument starts? Because she just wants people to attack. Other than that, you could set it on fire, and she wouldn't bat an eye. These articles are something she cares nothing for, yet she continues to vandalize them by making false claims about the title and about the users who support the correct title. Please, don't let her fool you. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Any time an editor who doesn't indent talk replies, uses a feminine or effeminate name from Japanese pop culture, and obsesses about the same utterly ridiculous naming dispute (and I am not sorry when I say that this is really really silly, yeesh), they suspect it's the same person. I'm not seeing the part where there's any evidence to the contrary, other than your increasingly-hollow-sounding protests. You trying to tear Erigu down doesn't really change that much for me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't much at all. Doesn't indent? I don't even know what the heck that means. Effeminate name from Japanese pop-culture? Such as? My name is from an anime that I like. So what? That makes me a sockpuppet? Many people have names based on characters or games or shows that they like. Even your name, intentional or not, could be tied to something like that. Are you a sockpuppet? Should everyone who uses "Sephiroth" in their names be banned? And out of the banned users, mine is the only one that really sounds like it has anything to do with Japan. Well, that ought to get rid of well over half the internet. And some ridiculous naming dispute? To you, it may be just that. But to actual fans of the series, it's important. And it becomes a source of outrage for fans to know that people are getting banned and the title falsified because of a troll who has barely even played one game in the series and just wants to cause trouble. You think it's ridiculous, then you shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place. I'm sure I would think some of your arguments are ridiculous. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be about informing people, but apparently you have the right to decide what is or is not important enough for people to argue about. You shouldn't go around demeaning people for fighting for what they believe in. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's say I got blocked for edit warring over the spelling of Moldovian. Then "A Tool of the Conspiracy" showed up, spoke with excessive parentheticals (like this), and started in on the same dispute, all while claiming that a cabal of admins persecuted the innocent AMIB (but I'm not AMIB, nope). Then Bavarian Illuminatus showed up, spoke the same way, and jumped into the same dispute, again claiming that they're taking up the cause of the persecuted.

Which do you think is more likely: that three people from the vast pool of people who care about the controversial issue of how you spell Moldovian who all speak the same way all showed up after seeing the previous ones persecuted unjustly, or that I'm the same person trying a transparent ploy? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You are not making any valid point here. There's nothing connecting these users, other than the fact that they chose to go up against those two vultures. They first targeted a certain user who disagreed with them over some minor issue a while back. No idea what that was, nor do I care, since it has nothing to do with me. After getting that person banned by making up false accusations that she was a duplicate account of two random IPs that happened to edit one or two of the same pages as that girl, they got her banned. Then, they staked out a few pages that user had liked, looking for edits to revert and people to attack, after which, they would follow those users to more pages to stake out. Choosing to support a certain side of an argument or edit a certain page does not make you a sockpuppet. Heck, a good number of people in that ARMs discussion supported the proper title. Does that make them all sockpuppets? The one who needs to be banned here is Erigu. I could introduce you to most of the people she's gotten banned on AIM. They're seperate people whose only mistakes were getting targetted by her. You want to say I'm a sock? Provide some valid proof and not some faked up checkuser thing that allegedly says I have the same IP as someone else. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Effeminate or feminine names from Japanese pop culture, a particular manner of speech, a highly esoteric topic of dispute. It seems you have some pre-existing dispute with Erigu from offsite, which makes this even less likely that you're an entirely new person. You're not passing the WP:DUCK test here.

I don't really know or care what your offsite dispute is, and I'm willing to help you put the past behind you. For one, take a break from this Wild Arms dispute. Even if you're right, some time away from it to cool down won't hurt anything, as these are not exactly hotbeds of contentious debate and this naming thing is a Really Inane Fight (and I should know, having been blocked for edit warring over template formatting). For another, drop the veiled accusation nonsense. It's annoying and unhelpful and makes you sound paranoid at best and deluded at worst. There's no admin cabal out to get you; at best there's one person who's prosecuting some sort of offsite rivalry, and if you disengage and he persists, it will be obvious. It doesn't take admin connections to get someone blocked for edit warring, as you - er, Fragments of Jade - have been, and you've been blocked by quite the cross-section of admins, some of whom I happen to know are barely on speaking terms with one another.

This is basically your last chance, and I'm giving you a lot more chance than most admins would. Disengage from Erigu and this Wild Arms nonsense for a while, do some other productive editing, don't revert war with anyone, and drop the veiled accusations, and we won't have to go round this "Yet another sock, indef blocked" merry-go-round again. I'd prefer to unblock FOJ to do this, as a matter of fact, but it's up to you. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

But I've already proven you're wrong about the "effeminuate Japanese names from pop-culture" thing. And again, you bring up the topic of dispute, and that irritates me. There was a perfectly fine discussion going on, prior to that person showing up. You may think it's stupid, but it's not to me. And it's not to most fans of the series. Third, you mention an "off-site" dispute, but this is the opposite. Some of the alleged sockpuppets were able to work out that Erigu was a banned member of a forum run by Fragments of Jade some time ago. Erigu is the one with a grudge. I have no off-site connections with her, since I only know of that forum in passing and am not a member there. Fourth, and by far, the bigegst problem here, is you are accusing me of being a sockpuppet and also a bad guy. Let me make this clear, regardless of whether or not you believe me. This is my one and only account on Wikipedia. I've never had another. I'm also acquainted with most of those other alleged sockpuppets, and they are different people as well. You are falsely making it seem like I'm doing something wrong, and you even attack Jade as well. The only one doing things wrong here is Erigu, and until she and her friend are banned, it will never stop. I know her attack patterns well. Even if I dropped the WA argument-and I will not, since I refuse to be victimized and forced to stop arguing something important to me and backed up by the guidelines,-she would still continue to hound me. Do your research. She will follow me to every article I edit and revert my edits with some kind of loophole in the rules, luring me into an edit war and annoying me. And of course, she will never drop the sockpuppet accusations. It is wrong to attack innocent users like this, and it needs to stop. More people need to start seeing through this girl. I have done nothing wrong, and I refuse to play along with you just for the sake of not being banned. I am not a sockpuppet, so I will not say I am one. Fragments of Jade was never one either, and if you want to talk to her, I would gladly give you the info to do so. You can have my info as well, because I'm already beginning to hate talking here. And likewise, I find the issue of the title to be important, so I will not end my discussion. It was a peaceful discussion, where good points were made. It should not be ended just because Erigu feels the need to bite into whomever argues against her. Sorry, but I have always been the type to refuse to falsely take the blame for things or be punished for doing nothing wrong. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, okay. I'm reasonably sure you're Fragments of Jade, who's currently blocked indef for edit warring and sockpuppetry, and you're back on a new sock edit warring, so you're blocked indef. I gave you all the chance in the world. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sure. You gave me every chance. If by that you mean, brazenly accused me of being a sockpuppet with very lame proof, most of which I completely discredited. It's horrid that this is how Wikipedia works. A new, innocent editor gets blocked because they've falsely been accused of sockpuppetry. Then you have the gall to come along and try to act like some kind of angel of mercy, all the while insulting me by impling that I'm a sockpuppet. Someday, someone will expose Erigu for what she really is, though I'm sure many more innocent people will have to be banned before someone opens their eyes. I can only hope someone else decides to have the bravery to challenge her false claims. Akari Kanzaki (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

How cowardly, blocking me without a template. I'm not a sockpuppet. Having an "female-sounding name related to Japanese pop-culture is a weak reason, and I was able to completely disprove that reason. Choosing to take interest in a title error on this site that any fan of the series in question would notice does not make me a sockpuppet either. There is no evidence at all to back this up-it's just a witch hunt.

Decline reason:

If there were any evidence that you had studied WP:Guide to appealing blocks, or were prepared to discuss changing your own behavior, I'd be more inclined to take this request seriously. As it is, the evidence in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/67.163.193.239 is strong, and there is not much reason to think your block is incorrect. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2009 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

There is no valid evidence at all! Claiming my username and theirs all have Japanese pop-culture references if false, and it proves nothing. And so what if I happen to share their opinions on one issue? So do many other people who posted in response to me at the video game project. Are they all sockpuppets? I should not be banned, as no proper evidence was given at all. I was just accused, and when I refused to bow down to that guy who tried to force me to admit I was some sockpuppet, I was banned, without even a proper template, I might add. It's offensive, that's what it is! Come up with some real evidence! It's easy to claim one user is the same as another by looking for little connections that really done prove anything. A small chance that they editted one of the same pages, and stuff like that, or a simple spelling error that many might make or that they make once by accident. Ir's just a trick.

Decline reason:

This is not a court of law, and we don't need to adhere to any particular standard of evidence. I see no reason to doubt the blocking admin's judgment here. —  Sandstein  15:10, 1 February 2009 (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.