User talk:Carcjoth1

Carcjoth1, welcome to Wikipedia. Can I ask you why one of your first edits was voting in an RfA? Go Phightins! 18:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was one of the first page I read after creating my name and theirfore I decide to vote oppose Carcjoth1 (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why? Go Phightins! 18:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ironholds (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

Carcjoth1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Invalid block reason. opposing a request for admin ship is certainly not grounds for blocking Carcjoth1 (talk) 19:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser confirmed sock. (X! · talk) · @846 · 19:18, 21 January 2013 (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.

In case you didn't know, you are supposed to address the actual reason for your block in the unblock request. You were not blocked for opposing the candidate. You were blocked for abusing multiple accounts. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 19:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume is was because other user were suspicious of me voting on a candidate as my first edit. Either way I feel this block is unjust.Carcjoth1 (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that and the way a checkuser identified you as a sock. Ironholds (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. You didn't even mention which account you think this is. Carcjoth1 (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser is proof. (X! · talk) · @846 · 19:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]