User talk:185.183.147.233

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Fq90 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fq90. 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. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:59, 4 February 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not fq 90, I am from the town Uppsala in Sweden as the IP adress shows. I could post an image to prove it if you think it is necessary. I have never mentioned SNPs either, which Generalrelative claims on the investigation page. 185.183.147.233 (talk) 11:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Here is a mention of SNPs. Yamla (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello. I saw that you declined my appeal. I did indeed mention SNPs as you show. What I mean to say in my appeal was that I have never brought up SNPs as an argument. Anyway, I shouldn't have mentioned it in the appeal because it was beside the point. My main point is that I am not the user fq90 from Colombia. I am from the town Uppsala in Sweden and am a completely different person, which I can prove via a picture if necessary. 185.183.147.233 (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Behavioral evidence, as given in the SPI case, is very convincing. Regarding the geo-location of your IP, it appears to be a proxy/VPN. Favonian (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I agree that we use a similar rhetoric. However, it is a common thing to say (what I say is not exactly unique), and constitutes indirect evidence. If you want direct evidence, I can prove it with a picture of me standing outside the Uppsala cathedral with a sign saying its me (or something like that). I am also open to you investigating my IP further in any way you want, and I give you permission to violate my privacy if required. Please allow me to prove myself so I don't have to waste your time anymore. 185.183.147.233 (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't know why you're going on about Colombia. If you act just like a sock puppet of a banned user, whether you are one or not, you'll be treated as if you are. It's to make our lives easier so we don't have to argue with you about taking pictures of Sweden or whatever. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

How would I be able to prove it then? If anyone could provide me with a link, e-mail or page where I can send images to prove I'am not a sockpuppet, that would be nice. Otherwise can you suggest another way to go about it? 185.183.147.233 (talk) 00:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. I would strongly advise you not to post another request, unless you totally rethink your approach to this, as not only are we going in circles thematically but now we all seem to be even more convinced you are the blocked sockmaster. So, if you do post another request like this, you will basically be wasting our time and yours, and in that event I recommend to any reviewing admin that your talk page access be revoked for the remainder of the block. This is your fourth request, which in some cases and some admins' judgement (often mine) would be enough by itself to take that step. I'm not doing it here because a) you've been relatively polite and b) this block is only for a week, which to me is a rather generously short block for this (but I defer to Callanecc's judgement). — Daniel Case (talk) 07:35, 5 February 2023 (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.

For posterity...

...probably worth noting that the previously blocked Fq90 sockpuppet ETDS554 made a strikingly similar offer to upload a document in their second of two unblock requests:

I can show you my biochem diploma as proof, if you tell me where to upload it

[1] and that the present talk page has been targeted by a vandalism-only account impersonating an admin [2]. Caution is advised. Generalrelative (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.