User talk:InnocentIAm

April 2020

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet 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. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:32, 28 April 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).

InnocentIAm (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 sock; I submitted an appeal for a friend. Absolutely zero evidence I have any other account. And of course, my friend's appeal was declined and reviewing admin refused to acknowledge the facts and gave some unrelated made up two word reason.

Decline reason:

Proxy editing on behalf or blocked accounts is not permitted, and users who do so are (by virtue of a longstanding Arbitration Committee decision) treated as though they were the blocked user. Thus, whether your claim is true or not, the block is valid. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:08, 28 April 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.

Oh come one, we can tell it's you. I suspect you're quite young (but if you are, don't say so), and you might think you're clever trying to fool us. But you're trying to fool grown ups who are smarter and way more experienced than you. Every trick you play like this is going to make it harder for you to ever be unblocked. Oh, and even if you were telling the truth, having a friend proxying for a blocked editor is also forbidden - see WP:MEAT. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "we can tell it's you" is not evidence that the aforesaid allegation is true. In addition, I am not a youngster, though your sophomoric banter leads to believe you are a child. InnocentIAm (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you might not be young (I only voiced it as a suspicion), but the rest of what I say is valid. Still, if a reviewing admin disagrees with my assessment after looking at the obvious evidence (and per WP:BEANS I'm not going to reveal the evidence to you), they're welcome to unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, if you deny my account basic due process, refuse to unblock despite have not a scintilla of evidence I'm the same person as Editor940, you would be acting against Wikipedia policy and undermining the very essence of due process. InnocentIAm (talk) 06:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEANS Is not policy. Read the notice on the top of page. InnocentIAm (talk) 06:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I still have no obligation to reveal to you the evidence that gives you away. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]