User talk:British Beefcake

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ravinello, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

CLCStudent (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Alternative accounts are allowed and I meet the criteria on several grounds

Decline reason:

Clear, blatant violation of WP:SOCK here. Yamla (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2019 (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.

You are not permitted to remove or edit declined unblock requests for active blocks. Please do not do so again. --Yamla (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Appealing Yamla decision taken impetuously. I admitted who I was but should never have been left unblocked when using Bravanello British Beefcake (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As per below. 331dot (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2019 (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.

PS adding note. I don't mind which account gets unblocked as I would only use that one. British Beefcake (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you've blatantly been violating WP:EVADE in addition to WP:SOCK. Note that I still can't see where you disclosed your alternate accounts prior to editing. Not that this would be particularly relevant, given your original account was blocked. --Yamla (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have revoked talk page access. You are not eligible for unblock consideration here and must make the request on your original account. --Yamla (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]