User talk:JoãoMolina99

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).

JoãoMolina99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Why was I blocked? I respected Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I'm no sockpuppet of anyone.

Decline reason:

This does not appear to be accurate. Sockpuppetry was established via behavioural and technical evidence. Simple denial is insufficient. Yamla (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Which kind of evidence? I'm simply denying due to the fact that I have nothing else to say, if I'm not a sockpuppet what should I add more? JoãoMolina99 (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The evidence shown at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Roqui15/Archive#18_October_2020. Again, simple denial is insufficient here. --Yamla (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh well, what do you advise me to do then? JoãoMolina99 (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Address the concerns raised at that page. --Yamla (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I saw the comparations and to be honest I can't see that much similarities in the way we wrote in those examples. And editing in the same area/topic as the other user it must be a pure coincidence. Most of my few edits were related to history, maybe the other user did the same. But is that enough to accuse me of being a sockpuppet? JoãoMolina99 (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Unblock

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).

JoãoMolina99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like to be unblocked. Like I said before I'm no Sockpuppet of Roqui15. I took a look at the evidence, but It still doesn't make sense at all the reason why they say I am a sockpuppet of Roqui15, I really don't. Was it because of my writing style being similar? Lie for real? It's simply that? A user is new here and is blocked because they have the same writing style as a blocked user? JoãoMolina99 (talk) 19:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You edited with the same style about the same topic. It's difficult to accept this as a coincidence. If it is a coincidence, you will need to explain why. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Well. What is it to be explained? I cannot speak on the behalf of the other user. The only similar edits I ever had with the other user was about the Portuguese empire in the list of largest empires page. There are even youtube videos regarding the Portuguese empire size on that particular page. I'm sure many other people have the same urge to change the size of the list, it can't be a coincidence if a factual topic is being discussed. And that's it, it's the only edit I ever had in common with Roqui15, It simply doesn't make sense for a user to be blocked in this way. JoãoMolina99 (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

We don't know who is sitting at the computer/holding the phone operating any particular account. When a new account does the same thing in the same style as a blocked account, we have no choice but to assume that the same person is operating both accounts, evading their block. In this case, the block is a checkuser block, meaning that there is technical evidence to support it. If you are not a sockpuppet, you will need to explain why technical evidence indicates otherwise, as well as explain why you are interested in the same subject matter as a blocked user. 331dot (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Which type of technical evidence? I still don't understand which kind of evidence you are talking about. I have told you already, I don't have the same writing style as the other user, at least in the examples given by the administrator I really can't see the similarities. And I also told you already, just because I wrote on the talk page on the list of largest empires about the Portuguese empire doesn't mean I'm the same person as Roqui15. Does it make sense to you for a user to be blocked in this way? For me don't. JoãoMolina99 (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The technical evidence is available only to checkusers(even I cannot see it) and they can only talk about it generally. You are free to make another unblock request for someone else to review, but simply denying sockpuppetry will not work. If there is a reason that technical evidence might indicate you have used other accounts, you will need to explain why. 331dot (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)