User talk:AbbeyRhoades

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Hammerman Gunmetal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) 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 sockpuppet, 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. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:20, 6 March 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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here AbbeyRhoades (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were suspected of being a sockpuppet account, something you move away from addressing in your request so elegantly as to make it seem purposeful. — Daniel Case (talk) 08:22, 6 March 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.

I am confused why I was blocked as I was adding edits and citations that were asked for and doing the requested research and wasn't doing anything disruptive. I saw the term "suspected" used and would like to know why I was blocked since my edits were accurate and not disruptive. I was offering good research that was asked for. And I did work on one of the projects on a page but that didn't seem against rules. AbbeyRhoades (talk) 06:16, 6 March 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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here AbbeyRhoades (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Every sock puppet denies being one, since that is the whole point. The merits of your edits do not matter if you aren't supposed to be editing in the first place. This is also a checkuser block, supported with technical evidence. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 6 March 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.

I am not a "sock puppet" and I was adding useful information. I am being treated with hostility and told I was "suspected" of something. It doesn't seem far as I added solid information that helped pages. It seems like I stepped into something larger. AbbeyRhoades (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When you make a new request, please post it below for proper discussion flow, and place your intial statement where the words "Your reason here" are, instead of placing it outside the request template. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]