User talk:KG11257

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:PostcolonialLitNerd per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PostcolonialLitNerd. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2022 (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).

KG11257 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet and have not violated any policy. On what basis have I been blocked? I simply moved a sentence to a different paragraph in my last edit because it did not belong in the other paragraph. Please refer to paragraph in my last edit - it does not make sense for that sentence to be in the first paragraph. The change was appropriate.

Decline reason:

This does not adequately address the evidence at the SPI. If you aren't the same person, it could be meat puppetry- making similar edits as a blocked user. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2022 (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.

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).

KG11257 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've just had a look at the SPI. Apparently, I got blocked as a suspected sockpuppet because I made an edit "after being inactive for half a year" and "started using edit summaries consistently around the same time" as an offending account. I do not wish to be discourteous and appreciate that Wikipedia has difficulty with problematic accounts, but this seems like a flimsy basis to block someone. I am not a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. My edit history will attest that I have not violated any policy or made edits in bad faith. I appreciate your consideration.

Decline reason:

Your edit history actually does more to convince me that you are working in concert with the others (whether as one or many does not matter) than any other aspect of the SPI. You've only ever edited the one article that has been the focus of all the socks.

And besides, if we unblocked everyone who said "I'm not a sockpuppet" just because they said that, we might as well not bother having a policy against sockpuppetry. As for "flimsy", well, there was also the technical evidence which I can't review but I defer to the checkuser who did. And we've blocked a lot of socks on less apparent evidence. — Daniel Case (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2022 (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.