User talk:Mailzzang+aus

October 2015
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that 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 may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  04:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Salvidrim
Dear User:Salvidrim!, English Wikipedia Administrator,

Thank you for your last response email in regarding with the UTRS issue and allow me to edit the personal discussion page. I tried to send a thanks email to you, because I would like to reply to your last email with say thanks and my request with my insist to be blocked with six months. However it was not possible through the 'Email this user' system, that another user advised me to do. So, I had a talk with an user and a steward how I can solve it. I now decide to put this email request at this discussion. .

Good afternoon,.

Thanks for your responses in regarding with my last request. May I ask two questions? firstly, how can I address the technical evidence(s) connecting his sockpuppets belongs to my former friend? secondly, my last intention, to be blocked with 6 months, was suggested as a matter of contest & my polite, because I am really sorry for my last mistakes including former legal threats, please ignore my request and may you or other administrators may consider same or smaller blocked period. Mailzzang+aus (talk) 06:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * To me it looks as if multiple accounts were operated from the same computer, and you claim that all but this one weren't you. I find it difficult to tell apart which human operated what account, or to believe that you weren't aware of the sockpuppetry "your friend" did. You can't even keep your story straight: Is Orient-kor your friend as you say at the top of the unblock request, or don't you want to talk with him as you say at the bottom? A more plausible scenario to me is that this is yet another account operated by the same person. You'll have to address that concern. You're welcome to request another review of your block, but personally I won't unblock you at this time. Huon (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind response again . Can I re-ask how can I address the technical evidence(s) connecting my former friend's sockpuppets belongs to him (or not belong to me)? because I am still not sure how to do. If you suggest the type of evidences, I would like to submit them through email, such as that may be such photos of inside of my students' residential accommodation and only two routers that are linked to multiple computers used by around 15 residences. Mailzzang+aus (talk) 06:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Good afternoon and other administrators. Thanks for your last responses in regarding with my one of questions. May I ask again the last inquiry? because it is little bit delayed. If you give your answer within this week, I will much appreciate on it. Mailzzang+aus (talk) 06:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't have any good advice here. It would be rather difficult to persuade me that neither sockpuppetry nor meatpuppetry was going on here. Huon (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for response. Recently, I and accommodation manager talked about this issue. He suggested to write a letter which describes two IPs from two Wifi routers. He also mentioned he can provide and explain other information, if any of you as administrators will ask to check whether neither I am not the sockpuppetry nor meatpuppetry. I tried to email to let it to you through the Wikipedia email system, but it is blocked. If you or other administrator will send email to me, I promise I will only use it to let the accommodation manager for his scanned letter and pictures. He also said he can also take a call from any of you. I hope his suggestion would solve this problem. Mailzzang+aus (talk) 07:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I did not see a question over there. You seem to miss the underlying issue of WP:MEAT. Firstly, none of the "evidence" you propose will show that it wasn't you who operated all those accounts. Did the accomodation manager personally see two different people edit Wikipedia under those different usernames? If not, why would their testimony be relevant? Secondly, even if there were two humans here, your edits show clear signs of collusion - thus "meatpuppetry". We don't care how many people are behind the IP address if they behave as one. Huon (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * For the first issue, Accommodation Manager also manages and checks the lab computers in my accommodation. So he said that he can identify the problems. For the second issue, another user could edit similar articles with similar interests as he studies in same degree course, and the manager also provides in the letter what happen in the lab. He mentioned remained cookie and other technical problems. As the letter proves and indicates there are two different persons used Wikipedia under those different usernames, and cookie issue, I believe this is enough to prove I am not the person who breached your policies. In addition, it is very important that the person did also confirm that he also put negative sides of the article you may checked. I carefully read the "meatpuppetry" policy that doesn't say relevant user is also required to be blocked, unless I could request the positive editing and he did. If I requested or I did the editings, I definitely could ask or put only positive sides. So the above comment doesn't persuade me and would not for others, because, as my understanding, he arranged the article with his bona fide and editing with my negative sides. Finally, I guess you may not the person who can give answer as you were the administrator who deals my last request and questions that you didn't give answer for. It is very uncomfortable to discuss about the untruth that the person is me only with IPs, without further fair consideration on the explanations from third party such as accommodation manager, who also manages the lap, and the Internet provider. For Wikipedia's fair consideration & determination on this problem, I would like to really request another administrator who doesn't have indirect or direct interest with Huon, will give answers and advice for the above request. Thank you for kind and fair consideration. Mailzzang+aus (talk) 04:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Same tiresome wikilawyering from one of several accounts that were originally created to promote this person. I don't see any indication in the answer above (from what sense I can make of it) of how unblocking this user will be beneficial to Wikipedia. OhNo itsJamie Talk 05:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that whether he could create the article for promoting the article. Even if he may promotes the article with his bona-fide as he was my former friend, I knew he made the article, but just leave him without requests or direct influences. Just one time, I only suggested one thing to delete the negative paragraph, but he rejected to do and the paragraphs were remained. So I could definitely ask or put only positive sides, if I requested to make the article or I did the editings, like the wikilawyering like some companies do. Even through he is no longer my friend, I would like to believe that he edited the article with his own intentions and minds without direct or indirect influences.

To be honest, once again, my first intention is not unblocking of my wikipedia ID, because I feel activities in Wikipedia can make harm on me, even if I didn't do the bad activity, and I am very disappointed from that nobody carefully and fairly listen my issues with third party supporting documents. If this ID will be unblocked, it would be great, but I do not pursue to back to participate in the Wikipedia activities. However, my first intention is simple that I want to do solve the problem, as I was not the dishonest sockpuppets owner that is wrongly recorded in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mailzzang%2Baus. If last English Wikipedia administrators, who checked and mentioned in this page, did carefully checked and considered this like Korean Wikipedia, I believe they didn't make the above-mentioned page. User:Unypoly did put same requests in Korean Wikipedia, but they didn't, after they also checked the circumstance. I remember you were one of the administrators who blocked to me put message in this page and rejected one of my requests. Once again, for Wikipedia's fair consideration & determination on this problem, I would like to really request another administrator who doesn't have indirect or direct interest with User:Ohnoitsjamie and some other administrators too. If you cannot believe my intention, it will be fine. Please I really would like to request that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mailzzang%2Baus shall be changed to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_User:Orient-Kor without my real ID mailzzang+aus. And then, it is fine you can re-block this ID again as my request as I do not want to participate in the Wikipedia activities anymore even if Korean Wikipedia where there was different conclusion was made for same issue. However, my first intention is simple that I want to do solve the problem, as I was not the dishonest sockpuppets owner that is wrongly recorded and it would be difficult to endure, if I continually participate in Wikipedia. After this problem will be solved, I will leave others and I will only check already arranged articles. Thank you. Mailzzang+aus (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You may want to find how he rejected to do and the paragraphs were remained at https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%82%AC%EC%9A%A9%EC%9E%90%ED%86%A0%EB%A1%A0:Orient~kowiki. This link can be also found at the above of this page. Thanks. Mailzzang+aus (talk) 06:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is you aren't interesting in editing English Wikipedia, but don't like that your account is blocked here? See WP:DISAPPEAR. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That was not my main request, even if I didn't know about your suggested policy. Please check again my texts in full, as the suggested method doesn't solve the request, because my main request is not to be considered another person who committed wrong behaviours that is accessible to public through Wikipedia webpage. I don't care my account would be blocked or erased, if I will not considered as the different person who promoted two people (me, Lee Gye-deok and Kang We-suck, who were friends to the multi-account user) with his wills only, without (or rejecting) our requests and suggestions. So I am very uncomfortable to be considered as my former friend but sockpuppet user, because he created and promoted the article. I did and do not care about the article in Wikipedia and I do not want to involve in Wikipedia, because I don't want to be stigmatised as another person again. I am still happy to present two above-mentioned letters through email as they contain some sensitive personal information and I do not want to share to public. I really want to live in quiet without being another person who committed wrong behaviours. Once again, for Wikipedia's fair consideration & determination on this problem, I would like to really request another administrator who doesn't have indirect or direct interest with the above-participating administrators. Thanks. Mailzzang+aus (talk) 04:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's even possible to grant this. You were blocked for sockpuppetry but at the same time you claim it was meatpuppetry and for the purpose of blocking we don't really care about the difference: both sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry are blockable offences. Because we will never know for sure and because you're saying you're not actually planning to edit if unblocked I believe this unblock request needs to be declined. I will do that myself in a couple of days if there will be no more input from fellow Wikipedians. Max Semenik (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As I remember and this Talk page record, User:MaxSem was the one of administrators who involved to block me, some months ago. Therefore, I believe if you do that yourself again, this would be much unfair involvement for this request. For Wikipedia's fair consideration & determination on this problem, I would like to really request another administrator who doesn't have indirect or direct interest with User:MaxSem and some other administrators who involved to decide to block me without careful consideration some months ago, will give answers and advice for the above request.
 * For other administrators, I would like to ask please listen my words that 'it is very important to figure out what was real story from my last accommodation with just two routers and IPs.' Please check the above comments carefully that say I can submit written letters and photos from my former accommodation manager, but it is continually ignored. It can be unfair not to get the chance to explain why I was not the person. If I edit something, you or other people are welcome to re-block me again, because I do not want to back to edit any article until I believe it would not be another scar from rash decision. However, it is because I cannot request to re-investigate this matter whether I was not as both sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, as I am blocked, this is my only way to request through my Talk page.
 * In Korean Wikipedia, the administrators also investigated same request from User:Unypoly, who is globally blocked and continually stalked me in Korean Wikipedia too (most recent case is https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%ED%8A%B9%EC%88%98:%EA%B8%B0%EC%97%AC/121.133.92.51. He continually asked to block me fifth times, but it is disallowed after Korean Wikipedia administrator continually checked). After the Korean Wikipedia long considerations without rash decision, but they checked and asked my explanations. They only blocked User:EiEiEi. They confirmed my former accommodation lap computers used two IPs and cookies that made several duplicated logins, technically. If I was the person who did both sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, I could be also blocked by Korean Wikipedia or international Wikipedia administrators, who participated in Korean Wikipedia too. However, User:ChongDae and other administrators in Korean Wikipedia confirmed that User:Orient~Kowiki (or User:Orient-Kor) also used User:EiEiEi. The two IDs are blocked. You can find what happen in Korean Wikipedia at https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/%EC%9C%84%ED%82%A4%EB%B0%B1%EA%B3%BC:%EC%82%AC%EB%9E%91%EB%B0%A9_(%EC%9D%BC%EB%B0%98)/2015%EB%85%84_%EC%A0%9C36%EC%A3%BC.
 * The Korean Wikipedia's decision could be different, if other users, than User:Unypoly, could request the same thing. So, it was not English Wikipedia administrators' faults. However Korean Wikipedia figured out the user, was requesting the blockade, is the User:Unypoly and User:Unypoly is really known the user who entrapped against other innocent users and administrators in Wikipedia. Therefore, I can guess how they really carefully investigated and asked my explanation.
 * Once again, I believe if English Wikipedia will allow me to submit written letters and photos from my former accommodation manager (the letter are written in English), like Korean Wikipedia did, there will be fair consideration from administrators. For Wikipedia's fair consideration & determination on this problem, I would like to really request another administrator who doesn't have indirect or direct interest with User:MaxSem will give answers and advice for the above request. Please also consider why Korean Wikipedia decided different decision from the real sockpuppetry User:Unypoly in Korean Wikipedia. Thank you for kind and fair consideration over the story and fact in Korean Wikipedia and as other supported documents. Mailzzang+aus (talk) 10:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)