User talk:NakajKak#Blocked as a sockpuppet

{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to Yasuke, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template.

}} Relm (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

:Yasuke has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. It can be found under the heading [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yasuke#RfC_on_Infobox_Image| RfC on Infobox Image] :: copied & pasted from my page, I do not why you are not invited.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I'm not a sockpuppet of KeiTakahashi999. My main activities are edits about physics on Japanese wikipedia. My 1st language is Japanese, and I have not edited so many on English wikipedia yet. My main interest is physics, not history. KeiTakahashi edited forign-birth samurai and Japan–South Korea radar lock-on dispute before. I have never edited them on both Japanese and English wikipedia. Why I got interested in Yauske is that this is now well-known subject in Japan. I have not posted any comments on current Infobox Rfc. This Rfc resulted from the discussion where KeiTakahashi said my opinion is "more convincing". If I were the sockpuppet, I've already written something to support his/her idia. KeiTakahashi999 pasted a template for current Rfc on my talk page. He/she may expect me to support him/her. But I'm getting exausted by conflicts on the talk page, and I have not posted anything yet. NakajKak (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2025 (UTC) |accept = Per discussion below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)}}

{{ping|Bbb23}} Please comment on the unblock request. I see that you requested an SPI while stating {{tq|I don't there's enough behavioral evidence to block without technical corroboration, which is why I'm filing and requesting a CU}}; the CU result came back as merely {{tq|Possible}}; and you then blocked {{tq|per the evidence presented at}} the SPI. I understand everyone's frustration with Yasuke-focused accounts, but unless something has changed, by your own description that does not sound like sufficient evidence to block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see why you think that. I have the combination of behavioral and technical evidence I was looking for that makes it probable the user is a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

::I wouldn't typically consider "Possible" as technical evidence, especially in light of the explanation above. I would welcome input from any other admins who would like to review. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't find the behavioral evidence here to be particularly compelling and I agree with Brad that "possible" doesn't really tip the scales, particularly since the other account you flagged based on the same behavioral evidence came back unrelated. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Lovely to hear from you again. At least Newyorkbrad is civil.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::What about my comment here was uncivil? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{ping|Bbb23|Voorts}} For what it's worth, I don't perceive Voorts' comments as uncivil; they strike me as rather routine discussion between administrators looking at an unblock request. On the substance, I am inclined to unblock this and the other accounts named in that SPI based on the weight of the evidence and the cogent unblock requests; but if you object, I can request further input at ANI if you would prefer. Please let me know. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{re|Newyorkbrad}} I still object to unblocking the two accounts (there's only other account at the SPI that is blocked). I would be okay with waiting for another administrator to comment rather than going to WP:AN (I believe a more appropriate venue for this sort of thing than ANI). Also, I was thinking about the "possible" finding by {{U|PhilKnight|Phil}}. It might flesh out the finding more if Phil could elaborate a bit more on it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: {{re|Newyorkbrad}}, {{re|Bbb23}}, {{re|Voorts}} - the 2 accounts geolocate to cities 40km away from each other. It's just about possible they are the same user, but I would lean to an unblock in this situation. PhilKnight (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Based on Phil's comments, I withdraw my objection to unblocking the two users.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Unblocked based on the discussion above. NakajKak, you are free to resume editing, but I suggest that your English Wikipedia experience will be much more rewarding if you don't focus exclusively on a single, highly controversial topic. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)