User talk:Leftoar

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Leftowiki per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Leftowiki. 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 ~~~~}}. Mz7 (talk) 03:59, 25 November 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi I deny these accusations, can see the evidence, i mean a direct link, i'm kind of new here so I need to see the evidence, because i read somewhere that it's needed to block people Leftoar (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The only evidence we are permitted to share is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Leftowiki/Archive. Yamla (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

the reason is that a hasty admin deleted this account for being a socket puppet just because I happned to create an article in arabic at the same time of their investigation, the idea itself of being a socketpuet in english wikipedia by writing an article in another wikipedia is non logical and shall be reverted immediatly, remember, I don't have ANY CONTRIBUTION in this wiki so far Leftoar (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No account was deleted as that is not possible; this account was blocked. This is a checkuser block and as such the connection is not in doubt. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2020 (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.

first of all 331dot I mis-spoke because i meant blocked not deleted so my bad, as for "such a connection is not in doubt", I just want to draw your attention that an account is blocked on the english wikipedia which was never used on it, not even a single edit, so oh yes, there is a big shadow of doubt on this, it's rather someone being extra cautious because two accounts created the same content in different languages, so if you are not convinced can you please tell me whome shall I contact to right this wrong Leftoar (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have no contributions here, why are you concerned with the block then? If you intend to make contributions here, you will have to give a plausible explanation as to why the evidence indicates you are a sockpuppet if you are not, in another unblock request. 331dot (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your choice of username alone is enough of a connection in my opinion. 331dot (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

331dot yeah well even you will admit it's too general of an "evidence", but a last question please, can you just inform me where I can see this evidence, so that I appeal it having known the basis of the ban ?

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).

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

Request reason:

following 331dot's advice, I will provide a common sense one, I cant possibly be a socketpuppet for someone if i'm not on the same article creation and editing platform so i create a socketpuppet for so and so to edit on another wikipedia, , so can someone please revert this decision

but here is my defense the article on socketpuppetry says " it is improper to use multiple accounts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks"

so 1: deceive or mislead, since the account wasn't used in wikipedia english people can't even be deceived and mislead (remember, not a single edit was done with this account in wikipedia english) 2: disrupt discussions, concensus..... never happened, this account wasnt used to connect andybody not even participate in debates 3: evading blocks, again you evade blocks in general to edit and make contributions

so please review this decision

 Leftoar (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:47, 7 December 2020 (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.

tell me User:Jpgordon how does it make sense that an account which was never used on this wikipedia can be "abusive" ?

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).

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

Request reason:

I was new to wikipedia and the accounts were meant as separate accounts for different purposes didn't even know it was not allowed, i assumed it was like twitter or facebook or gmail, but either way the other account has been abandoned for the longest time, and now i'm way more familiar with wikipedia policies, so even if it may be doubted it was an honest mistake, it was still abeginners mistake Leftoar (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Closing as stale, you may make another request and attempt to be more persuasive. 331dot (talk) 07:10, 1 June 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.

The problem is, you specifically denied you controlled multiple accounts. This isn't a case where you simply didn't know about WP:SOCK. You specifically denied using multiple accounts. Given that you attempted to mislead us even after we caught you, please explain why we should trust you now. --Yamla (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hello Yamla (talk I stand by what I said I was using this account for one type of account and somebody else was using the other account for some other type so when i denied i said i didn't know of it which I did not at the time, but either way it's not the point, the other account has been abandoned, so banning this one I think after all this time is perhaps the right thing to do and as an answer to your question "why should we trust you" it's quite easy, because I now know that if two accounts emit from the same ip or even the same router, trouble is very close