Lisa01011
Welcome!
edit
|
Nomination of Ko Ko Bop Challenge for deletion
edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ko Ko Bop Challenge is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ko Ko Bop Challenge until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)== Lay I NEED U ==
WOW, good job on creating Lay's I NEED YOU page, your work is impressive and quick. fighting
October 2017
edit | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC) |
Unblock request
edit
Lisa01011 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The account of me (Lisa01011) and my sister (ELSAK07) were both blocked. We decided to appeal the block from the older and more active account as the guidelines proposes to post the appeal from the 'original' account. We have read the sock puppetry article as well as the appeling guideline amd learned about the ban of multiple accounts using the same IP address. We aren't trying to deceive anybody or vandalize anybodys work. The articles we have posted so far have always been based on facts and verified with references that we have also checked multiple times. Some articles were added while not logged in, but that was not intentional. If the usage of both accounts while using the same IP address seems to cause troubles, we are willing to delete one account or refrain from using both - either way we will do our best to follow Wikipedia's guidelines.
Decline reason:
Frankly, coincidences of this magnitude just don't happen like that. The behavioral evidence strongly contradicts your assertion that this is merely a misunderstanding. Swarm ♠ 23:58, 2 November 2017 (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.
- @TonyBallioni: please can you review this request? The SPI page is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CJojoC. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- Lisa01011: are you and your "sister" editing from the same or different devices? Are you ever online at the same time? Are you aware of the guidelines at WP:FAMILY, and if so, why did you not follow them? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- MSGJ, the tie to the original master was stale here, so the block was behavioral in addition to the CU data. The block was recommended by a clerk, and I concurred with the recommendation after reviewing the evidence. That being said, since the master was stale, and I'm not familiar with the intricacies of this sock family, I don't mind a second set of eyes here. @BU Rob13 and Explicit: your thoughts would also probably be helpful. Rob on what the technical evidence showed, and explicit on the behavioral side. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- The technical evidence was clear. I will point only to WP:FAMILY. ~ Rob13Talk 14:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- MSGJ, we are both using one device. We sometimes proof-read each others articles and change things. As you can see we are mainly focus on articles in the field of Kpop which has been our passion for a few years. We thought about contributing to the database by updating and adding articles. We are sorry that we did not know about WP:FAMILY from the beginning. We were informed about it after the sock puppetry block. After we signed up for Wikipedia we did read guidelines about article writing etc., but not the one about IP usage which we admit was a grave mistake on our site. ~ User:Lisa01011 17:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- I will first ask a preliminary question before proceeding. Lisa, did you or your sister previously edit under the accounts CJojoC or Wexonex3, or are these your first and sole accounts? ℯxplicit 00:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- CJojoC and Wexonex3 are not our accounts. We only use Lisa01011 and ELSAK07. Those two are our first and sole accounts. ~ User:Lisa01011 15:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- The reason the investigation was initiated was because of your account specifically. From the beginning, you were very familiar with Wikipedia, like formatting references using the {{Cite web}} template (even formatting the dates exactly the same: YYYY-MM-DD) and using columns. You cited Korean-language references, which CJojoC also did, and I feel like I can assume with a high degree of confidence that you (as well as CJojoC) are not fluent in the language. You also share the similarity of copyright violations: citing one source [1], and then copying the text from another [2] as you did in Power (Exo song). Constant copyright violations was the reason CJojoC was blocked in the first place, and your continuation of that is just a little too eerie. Then, of course, the exact same interests (particularly Exo-related topics). You and Wexonex3 also uploaded the same cover (you uploaded File:The Power of Music EXO cover.jpg and File:The War - The Power of Music Cover.jpg), further showing a degree of familiarity similar to CJojoC, and the similarity in the name of the files. You edited 29 of the same articles CJojoC did, and you share 21 with Wexonex3, and all three share 16 of the same articles. The editing behavior between you two is almost exactly the same. It's one thing to share similar interests, but another when you're both editing articles of a different topic, as the accounts did with Room No.7, Party People (TV series), Dear Archimedes, and List of awards and nominations received by Twice. ℯxplicit 00:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- CJojoC and Wexonex3 are not our accounts. We only use Lisa01011 and ELSAK07. Those two are our first and sole accounts. ~ User:Lisa01011 15:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- I will first ask a preliminary question before proceeding. Lisa, did you or your sister previously edit under the accounts CJojoC or Wexonex3, or are these your first and sole accounts? ℯxplicit 00:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
- MSGJ, the tie to the original master was stale here, so the block was behavioral in addition to the CU data. The block was recommended by a clerk, and I concurred with the recommendation after reviewing the evidence. That being said, since the master was stale, and I'm not familiar with the intricacies of this sock family, I don't mind a second set of eyes here. @BU Rob13 and Explicit: your thoughts would also probably be helpful. Rob on what the technical evidence showed, and explicit on the behavioral side. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
