VeryGoodBoy

Welcome!

Hello, VeryGoodBoy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Greetings from WikiProject Korea!

Thank you for your recent contributions to Songpyeon. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Korea? It's a group dedicated to improving the overall quality of all Korea-related articles. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! Caspian blue (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mid-Autumn Festival. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — Satori Son 22:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Chinese New Year. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You have violated the three-revert rule on Chinese New Year. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 day in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You are lucky, I was considering blocking for longer due to your previous warnings about edit warring... -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that you continue to make changes to the article itself. At this point, if you have problems, you need to bring them up on the talk page of the article, and solve the problems before unilaterally changing the article in question. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You have violated the three-revert rule on Chinese New Year. Any administrator may now choose to block your account. In the future, please make an effort to discuss your changes further, instead of edit warring. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, you've also violated the 3RR. Most of my reverts were to indicate that the article is in dispute, which you've been trying to hide. I've also tried to discuss this with you, which you have ignored and just kept reverting. VeryGoodBoy (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I am only saying to use the talk page to work out the dispute. And that is all. For the rest of this, I am not getting involved. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Korean cuisine

The added content looks interesting, do you have a source you can add for the history content?--Chef Tanner (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you cite the sources when you get the chance then, academically all items need to be cited.--Chef Tanner (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, VeryGoodBoy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

I am VeryGoodBoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) and Koraskadi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki), but not the other accounts I am accused of.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am Res Iucata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) and Koraskadi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki), but not the other accounts I am accused of. VeryGoodBoy (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Don't care. Still a checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:43, 20 April 2020 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I did use multiple accounts, but did not abuse them to circumvent Wikipedia policies. I am not User:Ksjy0423, User:Relevent, User:Leftzombieout, User:Awrondio1. Nor do I have any relationship with them. As for this SP accusation, I was not given any notification, and did not have any chance to defend myself. I was already proceeding with WP:DR on the article Chosun Ilbo for several days[1][2] before this accusation was made. VeryGoodBoy (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Even if you have only been operating the accounts you have admitted, they have still been used in violation of the multiple accounts policy on Ryukyuan people, Yayoi people, 2020 coronavirus pandemic in South Korea and other articles. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:38, 21 April 2020 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Then use those articles as the point where I violated Wikipedia policies, not Chosun Ilbo. Again, I am not User:Ksjy0423, User:Relevent, User:Leftzombieout, User:Awrondio1. Please get that cleared out. VeryGoodBoy (talk) 10:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2020 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

First, I'd like to make myself clear that I was falsely accused in the SPI investigation and the SPI investigation made a wrong conclusion. I am not User:Ksjy0423, User:Relevent, User:Leftzombieout, User:Awrondio1. As long as the article Chosun Ilbo is concerned, I am innocent. I, however, acknowledge that over a long period of time I have on seldom occasions used more than one account on the same article or subject matter, be it intentional or by mistake. Either way, I make the promise that I will never again use multiple accounts abusively. And while not preferable, if it is necessary for my unblock, I'll only use the account Res Iucadata from this point on, and never use another account. Another main reason for my block, as I see it, is edit warring. To this end, I make the promise that I will make only 1 revert when I see a problem, and when that gets reverted, I'll immediately proceed with WP:DR, and only revert 1 per day if the other editor(s) is not responsive to discussion. This was my strategy on Chosun Ilbo of ending edit warring, and I believe it has worked well. Thank you for your consideration. VeryGoodBoy (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Hi VeryGoodBoy/Res Iudicata/Koraskadi, There are a few open questions, and an appeal that does not address the following points can not be accepted.

• Why did you operate multiple accounts for over two years? Why do you consider using a single account to be "not preferable"? Could you perhaps reconsider this opinion?
• You have complained about not having been able to defend yourself in the investigation. When appealing your block, you have the opportunity to defend yourself against the following accusations, which may be wrong, but we'll need to hear why:

• By editing project space, actively accusing Jeff6045 under a false name at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, you have deceptively violated the second bullet point at WP:BADSOCK. Hiding behind your sockpuppet, you sent messages like Special:Diff/949927681, which – while not in project space – violate the spirit of this policy as well.
• To avoid scrutiny, you made a fake retirement at User talk:Koraskadi.
• You had already been blocked for edit warring, specifically for violating the then-already-existent three revert rule, in 2008. By creating a new account, Res Iudicata, you attempted to have a clean start and stopped editing with the other accounts. However, you misused your clean start by continuing disruptive behavior that had previously led to a block.

• You propose "1 revert per day" for a lack of response in discussions? Have you actually imagined how that would look like, and how disruptive such behavior can become? See WP:DISCFAIL for a more reasonable approach.
• One part of "WP:DR" is disengaging from conflicts. Disengaging from conflicts does not mean "fake retirement", and it does not mean "new account, new luck". It ideally means "not caring about the conflict anymore". Are you able to do so, and can you promise to use this method of dispute resolution?

Pleading innocence seems to indicate a strange perception of Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy. You can not be unblocked without even acknowledging the policy violations. You are welcome to create a new appeal that answers these concerns, but I personally recommend the standard offer... and if it's just to prove your ability to disengage. Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2020 (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.

IP message at User talk:ToBeFree

Original heading: From VeryGoodBoy

Moved from User talk:ToBeFree

 – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm VeryGoodBoy/Koraskadi/Res Iucata. I've decided to take the standard offer, and to prevent myself from the urge of getting involved with Wikipedia for that duration, I've retired all accounts by resetting the password to a password I do not know. When I attempt to return, I'll make sure that I inform an adminitrator that I am returning from those accounts and follow the proper procedures. Meanwhile, I want to make an appeal. Not for an unblock, but to clear things out by answering your questions, and also to address wrong verdict in the SPI case.

• Why did you operate multiple accounts for over two years? Why do you consider using a single account to be "not preferable"? Could you perhaps reconsider this opinion? ::: I wanted to avoid contending editors from tracking my edit history and spread disputes or edit wars to other articles. And again, while I find it preferrable to do this, I'm very much willing to reconsider this opinion at the standard offer.

• You have complained about not having been able to defend yourself in the investigation. When appealing your block, you have the opportunity to defend yourself against the following accusations, which may be wrong, but we'll need to hear why: By editing project space, actively accusing Jeff6045 under a false name at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, you have deceptively violated the second bullet point at WP:BADSOCK. Hiding behind your sockpuppet, you sent messages like Special:Diff/949927681, which – while not in project space – violate the spirit of this policy as well. - I did not know of this policy. I thought the restriction mainly revolves around manipulating consensus and engaging edit warring through multiple accounts. I consider my request at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard to have been an attempt at dispute resolution. I was not asking for an administrative intervention. I was asking for other editors on Jeff6045's claim that my edits were original research.[3] My edits cited peer-reviewed journal articles, so I believed it wasn't original research. Jeff6045 was insisting on following dispute resolution procedures, so I checked the dispute resolution procedure. It seemed the original research noticeboard was the best choice for dispute resolution, by getting the opinion of other editors on whether my edits were original research or not.

• To avoid scrutiny, you made a fake retirement at User talk:Koraskadi. ::: That was my intention after being infuriated by Someguy1221 blocking me for edit warring when I was trying to disengage from edit warring and get discussion going. After my first block, I made a revert.[4], added NPOV dispute tag, and started discussion.[5] Jeff6045 reverted all my edits saying that my edits are "denied".[6][7] Given that Jeff6045 did not provide any valid reasons for his revert based on any Wikipedia policies and was not responsive to discussion, I reverted it back, asking Jeff6045 for a valid explanation at the talk page.[8] After that, Jeff6045 started to respond in the talk page, so I just added a NPOV tag instead of reverting the whole thing.[9] Then Jeff6045 reverts that too[10] and goes telling the admin who blocked me for the 3RR violation.[11] Someguy1221 blocked me again, and I couldn't even edit the talk page. I was trying to disengage from edit warring and take this to the talk page, but Someguy1221 just blocked me, treats me like a villain and encourages Jeff6045 not to do anything but to just contact him again if I make the same edit. After that, my intention to retire was genuine, with the password reset, although I did not excercise self-control in using another account to start editing again. I totally accept my fault in this.

• You had already been blocked for edit warring, specifically for violating the then-already-existent three revert rule, in 2008. By creating a new account, Res Iudicata, you attempted to have a clean start and stopped editing with the other accounts. However, you misused your clean start by continuing disruptive behavior that had previously led to a block. ::: I accept my fault in this. At the standard offer six months later, I will try my best not to engage in edit wars even when facing very difficult situations as Jeff6045 has presented.

• You propose "1 revert per day" for a lack of response in discussions? Have you actually imagined how that would look like, and how disruptive such behavior can become? See WP:DISCFAIL for a more reasonable approach. - I can wait more if that's what is needed.

• One part of "WP:DR" is disengaging from conflicts. Disengaging from conflicts does not mean "fake retirement", and it does not mean "new account, new luck". It ideally means "not caring about the conflict anymore". Are you able to do so, and can you promise to use this method of dispute resolution? - Yes, accept correcting that wrong verdict in the SPI case.

• Pleading innocence seems to indicate a strange perception of Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policy. You can not be unblocked without even acknowledging the policy violations. You are welcome to create a new appeal that answers these concerns, but I personally recommend the standard offer... and if it's just to prove your ability to disengage. - I am very grateful for your time and diligence in explaining and clarifying the issues, and I full-heartedly take your recommendation for the standard offer. I hope that you will be still active six months later, so that I can make the case to you. However, I'd still like to appeal to the SPI case.

My defence against the SPI case - In the article Chosun Ilbo, I did not abuse multiple accounts. In that article, Res Iucata is the only acccount I had used. Jerm's main behavioral evidence is Kim Chang-Kyoon being changed to Park Doo-sik. Park Doo-sik has been the editor of Chosun Ilbo since 2017. This is something I did not know until I got blocked and looked at the SPI case. Jerm also falsely claims that I "restored" Awrondio1 edits.[12][13] If you actually look at the two diffs, they are not identical edits. I removed what I considered were unreliable or biased sources and added new ones, and based on those sources, I also added an additional description that it is right-wing. Including my discussion in the talk page, these edits took hours of effort, checking the originally cited sources and perusing through peer-reviewed journals and academic books for better ones. While I was doing all that and also going through dispute resolution procedures, Jeff6045 was making minimal, if any, constructive discussion at the talk page[14], and then Jerm opened up a SPI case against me. I was not given any notice. I had no idea what was going on. What is the point of Defending yourself against claims[15] if you don't even know there's a SPI case against you. In the checkuser, the accounts Res Iudicata, VeryGoodBuy, Koraskadi and Farming with Karagga are correct confirmations. However, other accounts are not. I don't know the exact meaning of Possible on a checkuser, but if that just means possibility due to geographical proximity, then you can add 25 million people to the list of Possible, due to where I Seoul Capital Area. Again, I am not Ksjy0423, Relevent, Leftzombieout. I don't mind this VeryGoodBoy sock tag being on my confirmed accounts, but I do mind very much that this VeryGoodBoy tag is stuck on accounts that I am not related to. I admit abusing multiple accounts and accept the block, but the SPI case against me is a false accusation and has given a wrong verdict. I did not abuse multiple accounts in the article Chosun Ilbo, and I am not related to the other accused accounts. I accept my block and take your recommendation of the standard offer, but please correct that SPI case. I am not Ksjy0423, Relevent, Leftzombieout, Awrondio1. 2001:4430:D009:B448:0:0:903:8A7E (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi 2001:4430:D009:B448:0:0:903:8A7E,

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/VeryGoodBoy/Archive contains the text "the following group is Confirmed (to each other)" regarding Res Iudicata, VeryGoodBoy and Koraskadi. My response to your block appeal is purely about this finding, which you have already confirmed yourself, and not the other accounts. I have declined your appeal purely based on what you, yourself, have confirmed. I have not declined the appeal based on any of the other accounts' activities.
• It was done in good faith, but locking yourself out of the main account, "VeryGoodBoy", was probably a mistake and makes future appeals harder. The community has neither granted you courtesy vanishing nor a clean start, and future accounts have to be publicly and clearly linked to your old accounts. Merely informing one administrator is not the way to do so; I'm not entirely sure what the best way is, even. To make matters worse, you will have to evade your block to create a new account. Your appeal will boil down to "I did not use sockpuppets for six months, but now I have created a sockpuppet because I had to. My latest sockpuppeteering happens right now. Please unblock me anyway." That's a bad position, but perhaps the community will have mercy.
• It was also done in good faith, but messaging me while logged out is block evasion. An understandable case of block evasion, but still... uh. You could have sent this message to your own talk page using your account, if you hadn't willfully burnt the bridge down.

I see a tough, tough unblock discussion coming in about six months. May I kindly recommend waiting until 2021? You'll have a while to consider this idea.

All the best, and best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)