Isuznqpeosi67
Blocked as a sockpuppet
edit
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
- {{unblock| Isuznqpeosi67 (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Isuznqpeosi67 (talk) 11:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Isuznqpeosi67 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Dear Dreamy Jazz, Hello, I am leaving this message to explain some matters regarding the edits on the Michael Kim (businessman) page. First, I want to acknowledge that I was not familiar with Wikipedia's culture and regulations, and I acted in an inexperienced manner. Upon reflection, I realize that I may have disrupted the Wikipedia project, and I sincerely apologize for that. This experience has made me appreciate the positive contributions Wikipedia makes to society worldwide. I also want to express my deepest respect for your contributions, Dreamy Jazz. I would like to explain the reasons behind the removal of the "Tax Issue" section in the Michael Kim (businessman) article. Michael Kim is a U.S. citizen who has abided by Korean laws and paid taxes, and he has never had any tax-related issues. Nevertheless, the Chosun Ilbo reported false information, claiming that Michael Kim engaged in tax evasion. MBK Partners, led by Michael Kim, immediately refuted these false claims, and this refutation is included in the article. If you look at the Chosun Ilbo article, you will see that Michael Kim leads MBK Partners, the largest private equity firm in Korea. If it were true that he had paid a large fine of 40 billion KRW due to overseas tax evasion, multiple Korean media outlets would have reported on it. However, no other media outlet, apart from the September 6, 2022 article from Chosun Ilbo, which is being cited as the source for this tax issue, has reported on this matter. It seems highly unnatural that such a major issue would be covered by only one news outlet. If you search for this information on Google using relevant keywords, you will find that what I am saying is true. Furthermore, if you read the article, it even admits to its own errors. MBK has clearly stated that it did not engage in tax evasion, nor was it subject to any penalties, and the Korean National Tax Service has also stated that it cannot confirm any such issues. Since MBK and the Korean National Tax Service have both officially stated that there is no issue, presenting this article as fact would unfairly harm both the individual and the investors involved. In common terms, we would define such an article as a false report. As mentioned earlier, MBK immediately refuted the false claims, and no other media outlet besides Chosun Ilbo has covered this malicious article. It was suddenly added to Wikipedia by an IP address, '121.139.74.77,' which, if you check the history, has had no previous activity on Wikipedia. If you look at the contribution history of that IP address, you will see that this was the only contribution made. Furthermore, the user 'Killkim,' who re-added the "Tax Issue," also has no other activity on Wikipedia, except for two edits related to the "Tax Issue." Since I was unfamiliar with Wikipedia's culture, I didn't even know what vandalism was at first. After being blocked repeatedly, I didn't understand why and felt frustrated. However, through this experience, I now fully understand that I did something wrong, and I also recognize the efforts of many contributors like yourself to combat vandalism. For a private equity firm, even one inaccurate article or issue can harm its credibility. When such information spreads rapidly on a major crowdsourced platform like Wikipedia, it can severely damage the reputation of both individuals and companies, not to mention the financial losses that may follow. That is why I viewed the act of posting this false information on Wikipedia as a malicious act, which is why I quickly removed it. It is incredibly difficult to prove that something is not true when there is no basis for the claim. Writing an article falsely stating something as fact is relatively easy compared to disproving rumors that have no foundation. In particular, this issue, where non-existent facts and the rebuttal coexist, is already causing significant harm. I sincerely ask for your understanding on this point. Therefore, I kindly request that you review whether the actions of the aforementioned IP address and user account should be considered vandalism. - Contribution history of IP '121.139.74.77': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/121.139.74.77 - Contribution history of 'Killkim': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Killkim As you may be well aware, Wikipedia has guidelines for "Biographies of living persons," which include the provision "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced." The tax issue, which has been clearly refuted by the subject, is a false claim made by a malicious news outlet. Additionally, the involvement of users with potential vandalism intentions complicates this matter further. The tax issue is poorly sourced and causes confusion, which I believe violates the "Biographies of living persons" guidelines.
Decline reason:
This is almost identical to the unblock request I declined over at User talk:Crosspoint100. This strongly indicates you are deliberately wasting our time. Yamla (talk) 12:06, 6 October 2024 (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.