@ToBeFree @Bbb23 It's been a very long time, and I carelessly made the wrong request. I wish to request the Standard Offer. Judication (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you want will have to be done at your main account's Talk page, not here.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 I no longer have access to any of the three accounts. Please read ToBeFree's last comment on this page[1]. Judication (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Besides VeryGoodBoy and Judication, what other accounts have you used?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Koraskadi, Res Iudicata and Farming with Karagga. I was reserving the last one for editing on other topics. All other allegations in my SPI case are false. Judication (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Judication, please create an unblock request using the {{unblock}} template, here on the only page you currently have access to. Please read WP:GAB before doing so, in case you haven't done so for a year or two.

Specifically, please provide the following information:

• What did you do?
• Why can we be sure it won't happen again?
• What would you like to do when unblocked? In addition to describing the general direction, please also provide at least two specific examples for helpful edits that you would like to make but are currently prevented by the block. Which article, which change?
• An answer to Bbb23's question above (22:12, 19 June 2022).

As condescending and mechanical as this process is, this is also about proving your ability to understand and follow instructions, so please take the time to really provide this information, and to do so in a concise way. There is no time limit for creating the request, so I'd rather wait a month for your answer than seeing one that doesn't address the questions. All the best, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't feel condescending or mechanical at all. 😊

I'll take my time and do my best to provide the necessary information. As it was years ago, thank you for taking your time, being kind and providing very helpful advice. Judication (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the kind feedback and for doing this. Others in your situation might have attempted to evade the block yet another time, would probably eventually have failed, leading to a pretty chaotic and dramatic situation. Being here on this page instead, after Special:Diff/1093936103/1093947629 and Special:Permalink/1093948519 as your first contributions after two years, is a huge step forward. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

• What did you do? ::I created multiple accounts on Wikipedia, notably Koraskadi and VeryGoodBoy. I used these two accounts to prevent spillover of toxic edit wars to multiple articles. However, I understand that I had abused these accounts in same articles either by mistake or with intent to influence content without due effort. I admit I had abused these two accounts on COVID-19 pandemic in South Korea with an explicit intent to influence content. I created another account, Res Iusdicata, for editing the article Chosun Ilbo and other related articles involving Korean politics. *Why can we be sure it won't happen again? ::I will again create separate accounts, but for broader topics that do not overlap as Koraskadi and VeryGoodBoy did. For example, I will create an account that covers history, culture and language, a second account for South Korean politics, and a third account for scientific theories. I will use the current account, Judication as the first account that covers history, culture and language. If possible, I will inform an admin or admins of the creation of these accounts by email so that Wikipedia administration knows these accounts belong to me. This will prevent myself from even thinking of abusing these accounts, and Wikipedia administration can immediately intervene if I abuse these accounts. It's my wish to keep these accounts separate to prevent what I have already experienced, which are spillovers of edit warring to multiple articles in Wikipedia, and online harassment, invasion of privacy, and real world threats through other platforms and means. *What would you like to do when unblocked? In addition to describing the general direction, please also provide at least two specific examples for helpful edits that you would like to make but are currently prevented by the block. Which article, which change? :During my absence, I believe a lot of inaccurate and distorted content have been introduced to articles where I used to be active, notably Goguryeo, Balhae, Gojoseon, Hanbok and articles and contents related to them, and these changes have made them inaccurate, biased and unencyclopedic. I can provide specific examples for helpful edits to improve Wikipedia in each of these articles. If these edits are disputed, I will actively engage in discussions and dispute resolution procedures as I've done here[2], here[3] and here[4] in the past. Specific examples are provided below outside of the unblock request template due to an error that I can't figure out how to solve. Judication (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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. — Voice of Clam 20:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

Specific examples are as follows.

• Goguryeo

There was an edit war a few weeks ago regarding state succession of Goguryeo that ended inconclusively by an administrative action, banning an editor who abused sockpuppetry. I will remove Protectorate General to Pacify the East on the basis of Succession of states. According to this principle, claims of succession takes priority when the state in question is completely extinguished. The Goguryeo state was disintegrated by China, but Balhae and Silla claimed succession. The Tang dynasty article does not include Goguryeo in preceding states, and neither does the Baekje article include Protectorate General to Pacify the East in its succession states.

I will add Yemaek as predecessor tribes of Goguryeo in the template, with references if necessary.

I will replace Northeast China with Manchuria. The concept of Manchuria includes Russia's Russian Far East region, where Goguryeo held territories such as Vladivostok. It also establishes consistency the common usage of Manchuria within the article and the History of Manchuria template.

I will restore the Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences see also link in Controversies. Despite its significance, the article has been orphaned in the Goguryeo article.

I will remove this WP:FRINGE statement and replace the source in the previous line with authoritative sources by Barnes and Byington.

Beckwith, however, argued that the record was incorrect. Instead, he suggested that the Guguryeo people were first located in or around Liaoxi (western Liaoning and parts of Inner Mongolia) and later migrated eastward, pointing to another account in the Book of Han.

Over time, I will make changes to subsections Origin to Goguryeo-Wei Wars based on authoritative sources, and organize it into developmental stages in chronological order - Mythology, Before 75 BC, 75 BC - 12 AD, 12 AD - 207 AD, 207 AD - 245 AD, 245 AD - 300 AD. I expect most of the changes to be in Origin, much of which is currently based on primary sources. This is not in accordance with WP:RS and overlooks an important concern of academic experts that primary sources are not critically assessed in Goguryeo research.

Over time, I will make changes to Controversies to reflect recent developments and research.

• Balhae

I will replace a part of the first sentence with was a multi-ethnic kingdom in Manchuria and the Korean peninsula. The basis of this edit is the same as replacing Northeast China with Manchuria in Goguryeo, as explained above. I will also restore important information about its establishment and ethnic diversity that was replaced with this statement,

The history of the founding of the state, its ethnic composition, the nationality of the ruling dynasty, the reading of their names, and its borders are the subject of a historiographical dispute between Korea, China and Russia. Historical sources from both China and Korea have described Balhae's founder, Dae Joyeong, as related to the Mohe people and Goguryeo.

All reliable sources that backed the former content were inexplicably removed, and it was replaced with a controversial statement that is not in accordance with WP:RS, WP:ENCY, WP:NPOV, and as I've said in the talk page of Balhae, such content belongs to section Controversies. For the above purposes, I will replace the introduction with a slight modification to a former version, which I believe is in far better shape than the current one. The edit will be,

Balhae (Korean: 발해, Chinese: 渤海; pinyin: Bóhǎi, Russian: Бохай, romanized: Bokhay, Manchu: ᡦᡠᡥᠠ‍ᡳ), also rendered as Bohai, was a multi-ethnic kingdom in Manchuria and the Korean peninsula.^[1] Balhae was established by refugees from the fallen Korean kingdom of Goguryeo and Tungusic Mohe tribes in 698, when the first king, Dae Joyeong, defeated the China at Tianmenling.^[2][3][4] Along with Goguryeo refugees and Mohe tribes, Balhae had a diverse population, including other minorities such as Khitan and Evenk peoples.^[5] Balhae had a high level of craftsmanship and engaged in trade with neighboring countries such as Göktürk, Japan, Silla and Tang.^[6]

Balhae's original capital was at Dongmo Mountain in modern Dunhua, Jilin, China. In 742 it was moved to the Central Capital in Helong, Jilin. It was moved to the Northern Capital in Ning'an, Heilongjiang in 755, to the Eastern Capital in Hunchun, Jilin in 785, and back to the Northern Capital in 794.^[7] In 926, the Khitan Liao dynasty conquered Balhae and established the autonomous kingdom of Dongdan ruled by the Liao crown prince Yelü Bei, which was soon absorbed into the Liao.^[7] Meanwhile, a series of nobilities and elites led by key figures such as crown prince Dae Gwang-hyeon, were absorbed into Goryeo.^[8]

Over time, I'll slowly go through the article and try my best to move out controversial statements to section Controversies and Balhae controversies, and replace them with academic material from WP:NPOV and WP:RS sources.

• Gojoseon

I will remove section Academic perspectives and all its contents. Section Academic perspectives consists of a near copy of Gina L. Barne's work State Formation in Korea, where she critically assesses old perspectives of Gojoseon, and a one-sided criticism of Korean historiography of Gojoseon written by editor/editors. Every individual sources used by Barnes for analysis shouldn't be explained in detail. It is the analysis by Barnes that should be written into other sections of relevance in the article. The criticism of Korean historiography is not about Gojoseon itself. It belongs to Korean nationalist historiography. If editors want to dispute this and engage in a war of POVs, I am tempted to create a controversy section in Gojoseon or an article about it, and move all the conflicting POVs there. I'll quote myself regarding this.

All this "Korean theory X", "Chinese theory Y", "Russian theory Z" style of your writing is confusing and inappropriate for this article. The purpose of this article is to provide information on Balhae to readers with as much neutrality and validity as possible. Your style of writing, which is inclusive of all information regardless of neutrality and validity, is appropriate for the article on Balhae controversies. I created that article for the very purpose of covering all conflicting points of view on Balhae. In this article, editors like you and I should strive to come up with a coherent description of Balhae based on the principles of WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:VER. Looking at sources that are not involved or tainted by Korean/Russian/Chinese/Japanese bias is most preferable.[5]

I will make changes to the first paragraph to reflect academic perspectives that distinguishes the concept of Gojoseon as a state and as a historical region.

Gojoseon (Chinese: 古朝鮮; Korean: 고조선; Hanja: 古朝鮮) was the first Korean kingdom that lasted until 108 BCE. According to Korean mythology, the kingdom was established by the legendary founder named Dangun. Gojoseon possessed the most advanced culture in the Korean peninsula at the time and was an important marker in the progression towards the more centralized states of later periods.^{[citation needed]} The addition of Go (고, 古), meaning "ancient", is used to distinguish the kingdom from the Joseon dynasty that emerged later in 1392 CE. Joseon is also a historical region in the eastern rim of the Bohai Sea and the Yellow Sea, between the lower Liao river basin and the Han river basin.^[9][10]

I will replace the third paragraph, which asserts there are many interpretations of Gija Joseon and Gija Joseon's existence is debated. Contrary to this, the source says the Gija myth is likely to have been a Sinocentrism by the Chinese in 3rd-2nd century BC. In the source, interpretations of the Gija myth are either refuted or explains it as a different state. Other sources can be used as references to make the statement that reflects modern NPOV academic perspective which denies Gija Joseon's existence, such as Pre-Modern East Asia, where it says

Koreans in later times pointed to this tale to claim that Gija brought the "Korean people" up to the advanced level of early Zhou civilization, but archaeological evidence provides no support for such early involvement with the Chinese hearthland.

For this purpose, I will replace the third paragraph with

Pre-modern sources dating from the Han dynasty claim Jizi, a mythical sage from the Shang dynasty, fled the falling empire and established Gija Joseon in 1122 BC. Modern experts see the connection between Gija and Gojoseon as a later fabrication and deny Gija Joseon's existence due to contradicting evidence.^[11][12][13]

Over time, I will split the article into Gojoseon/Gojoseon(state) and Joseon (historical region), and refocus content of Gojoseon on the Gojoseon's mythology, state-formation and history, and focus Joseon (historical region) on archaeological cultures and languages of the region.

• Hanbok

I will replace the last two paragraphs of subsection Jeogori. Currently these paragraphs explain that Jeogori has no connection to hobok because it has closures to the right(우임), not the left(좌임). To the contrary, there is material evidence in the Goguryeo wall murals that Koreans used Jeogori with both types of closures with a gradual shift to closure to the right over time. There is growing academic consensus that hanbok and Scythian cultures are not directly related. In these challenges in academic papers, the concept of "Scythian" was simply excluded from the concept of "hobok", but the connection between hobok and hanbok is maintained in the academic consensus. Also, the statement that Hanbok was influenced by a southern "tropical style" is based on an unreliable source, a Korean wiki project, and even the source itself directly contradicts what is written in the statement. Thus, I will replace the last two paragraphs with {{Blockquote |text=The early form of jeogori originated from or have been influenced by hufu.^[14] Hobok characteristics of the ancient jeogori include the closure on the front^[15], closure to the left side, known as jaim(좌임), narrow sleeves, and both men and women wearing trousers, even under chima.^[16]. Beginning with the aristocrats of early Goguryeo period and increasing Chinese cultural influence, people began to associate jaim with barbarism and wooim with high culture, and gradually started using jeogori with wooim. By the time of the Goryeo dynasty, wooim has completely replaced jaim.Lee, Sana Eun; Kim, Kyeong Mi. "한복 저고리의 여밈에 관한 고찰". 동양예술. 20: 81–115.

Over time, I will write a controversy section and a new article to explain the current Hanbok-Hanfu controversy. I believe the subject now qualifies the criteria of WP:Notability and WP:Significance to create a new article with enough reliable sources to use.

Over time, I will make changes to the article in the interest of WP:NPOV as more reliable sources become available.

Over time, I will make changes to Hufu, also known as hobok in Korea, and add content related to hanbok and Korean culture.

• If any dispute arises in these specific edits, I will discuss the changes and follow the dispute resolution procedures if the dispute cannot be resolved through discussion. I will, under no circumstances, abuse multiple accounts.

• Wikipedia Policies

Over time, using my third account on scientific theories, or a dedicated fourth account, I will advocate changes to some Wikipedia policies that I believe encourage toxic and abusive behavior at the expense of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

• What did you do? I created multiple accounts on Wikipedia, notably Koraskadi and VeryGoodBoy. I used these two accounts to prevent spillover of toxic edit wars to multiple articles. However, I understand that I had abused these accounts in same articles either by mistake or with intent to influence content without due effort. I admit I had abused these two accounts on COVID-19 pandemic in South Korea with an explicit intent to influence content. I created another account, Res Iudicata, for editing the article Chosun Ilbo and other related articles involving Korean politics. *Why can we be sure it won't happen again? I will not create or use separate accounts again. On the userpage, I will make it clear that I am Koraskadi, VeryGoodBoy and Res Iudicata. *What would you like to do when unblocked? During my absence, I believe a lot of inaccurate and distorted content have been introduced to articles where I used to be active, notably Goguryeo, Balhae, Gojoseon, Hanbok and articles and contents related to them, and these changes have made them inaccurate, biased and unencyclopedic. I can provide specific examples for helpful edits to improve Wikipedia in each of these articles. If these edits are disputed, I will actively engage in discussions and dispute resolution procedures as I've done here[6], here[7] and here[8] in the past. Specific examples are provided above. Judication (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only; please make a new request when you can engage with us and respond to the question by Nosebagbear below. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

@ToBeFree @Bbb23 @Blablubbs @Voice_of_Clam

I don't understand why my standard offer / unblock request is being disputed. The last request was declined for procedural reason only, and it said I am welcome to request a new block review. I reworded my request by saying I will not create any other accounts aside from this one, unlike the last request where I said I will create multiple accounts for different topics. @Voice_of_Clam accused me of still using socks[9], but I am not. I don't know why there's an edit war over this on my own talk page. Judication (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about your unblock request, Judication, but we have a new troll who thinks it's entertaining to go and close unblock requests as if they are an admin, usually denying the request and insulting the editor. They are popping up everywhere including your talk page. Sorry for the interruption while folks were cleaning up after them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. It looks like Wikipedia administrators are overwhelmed these days. Judication (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Judication, why do you believe you need to create multiple subsidiary accounts for editing in different spheres? What problems do you see potentially arising and how would you prevent them from happening (if you can)? Nosebagbear (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]