User talk:Nacho wifi

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).

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

Request reason:

I recently made an account but was blocked almost instantly for being on the same IP address as editors named UnbiasedVictory and Amerijuanican. I live in a fairly-large apartment complex that offers free wifi so blocking his/her/it/their IP address is extremely inconvenient to the users that have to share the same wifi and actually intend to follow the rules. But I digress, can anyone help? Thanks. Nacho wifi (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This account is not blocked. Checkuser does show a 100% match to those other accounts, however, and by the way the IP is not the only information used in the comparison. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:24, 19 December 2015 (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.

I've reverted your changes and I will be notifying the Admins User:Unbiasedvictory exactly who do you think you are fooling? Tirronan (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to notify who you please, I have nothing to hide. Although none of my recent edits have been false or major, which means you're deleting helpful information without cause and before officially contacting an Administrator to prove or disprove any accusation you may have. Perhaps a little hypocritical when thought out, but that's neither here nor there. Nacho wifi (talk) 06:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They have been notified and you are using a sock puppet account again...Tirronan (talk) 06:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good. Maybe this can actually get sorted out with civility instead of your attempted edit war. I haven't done anything wrong and have made legitimate edits. This is so confusing. Nacho wifi (talk) 06:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UnbiasedVictory has been filed. Do not bother to reply to this post. HLGallon (talk) 07:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding. But I'm a little new here (appreciating the hospitality by the way) and would like to know what that means specifically, being that it is an investigation that involves me. Nacho wifi (talk) 08:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of UnbiasedVictory (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

Blocked for sock puppetry and just established the profile, reluctantly at that. My IP Address also doesn't resemble the so-called, "sock." I think supporting the information added by him, her or them, which was constructive but is subject to deletion following the blocking of that sock (according to the appeal guide), has led to a wrongful accusation and subsequent wrongful blocking of me. I don't feel my use of this account has been illegitimate either, once again the added information was essential and constructive. I asked all users kindly to see the talk page I created on the Siege of Fort Erie before reverting anymore edits because of this, and to avoid an edit war, and I was blatantly ignored. Nacho wifi (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Having looked at the evidence presented it appears pretty clear that the sock-block was entirely in order. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 22 December 2015 (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.

I seem to be the only one missing this vivid, image-creating pile of evidence Bushranger. But in any case, if the general consensus is against me having an account on this website then so be it - I was hesitant to create one to start with. I do, at least, encourage the information added on all three articles be looked at. Regardless of who adds the legitimate information, if it is undeniably factious it should be up to the Administrators to see that this information is corrected for the purpose of educating the viewer. Nacho wifi (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am blocking access by Nacho wifi to this talk page. Nacho wifi you must request an unblock of your primary sockmaster account (user:UnbiasedVictory), not this one. While the talk page of that account is unavailable to you, if wish to appeal the block you can use the Unblock Ticket Request System or email the Arbitration Committee as detailed at WP:BASC. -- PBS (talk) 00:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]