User talk:Chadkim0102

October 2024

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet 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 sockpuppet, 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. Bbb23 (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2024 (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).

Chadkim0102 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Administrator Bbb23,

First of all, thank you for your dedication to the administration of Wikipedia.

I am the official representative authorized by Michael Kim. There is a serious defamatory statement in the Michael Kim article, and following the instructions on the Wikipedia page below, I was advised to send an email to info-en-q@wikipedia.org.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Libel

Additionally, I was informed by a Wikipedia staff member via email to resolve the issue through the talk function, so I created an account named 'AgentofMBK' and initiated a discussion. However, I was subsequently blocked for allegedly using a sockpuppet account.

At that time, I was unaware of Wikipedia’s policies and created another account, 'chadkim0102'. I acknowledge this mistake, and I promise that it will not happen again. I will only use the 'chadkim0102' account from now on.

I am fully aware that the Michael Kim article falls under the BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) policy, and my intention is to correct objective and factual inaccuracies in the article. I believe that these actions, although small, will contribute positively to Wikipedia.

I kindly ask for an opportunity to proceed with the discussion in a proper manner, in line with Wikipedia's principles.

Chadkim0102 (talk) 03:09, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You addressed this to Bbb23, but unblock requests are to ask for a third party to review the matter. If you wish to negotiate with Bbb23, you don't need to make an unblock request. I will review this, however. Apparently Mr. Kim has many representatives or interested parties, as there are several socks involved here. Anyone who attempts to make the edits you and Mr. Kim are seeking will be blocked as a sock puppet, more specifically a meat puppet. The original account first needs to get unblocked(which seems to be User:Cyonsw). I would suggest that Mr. Kim stop asking others to make edits, as it will only get them blocked. If Mr. Kim is alleging that a statement is defamatory, you have already been told that he may handle that by sending an email to the address described at WP:LIBEL, you don't need to be unblocked to do that. It doesn't seem to be from what I can tell, but maybe you have some argument that I'm not aware of(don't go into that here, please). Mr. Kim may want to start by dealing with the source itself first and ask them to publish a retraction or correction. In any event, there is no reason here to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2024 (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.