User talk:Kingtut601

Sockpuppetry case

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johncoracing48. Thank you. Cunard (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. TN X Man 15:07, 22 March 2010 (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).

Kingtut601 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have never done anything illegal on Wikipedia. In real life I am a friend of johnco48. We have wrote on the same pages before because we have the same intrests but there has been no sock puppetry. I ask that my indefinite suspension be lifted because I have done nothing illegal. Also I mainly use wikipedia for research not so much editing uless I see a blatant mistake.--Kingtut601 (talk) 12:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Based on the evidence introduced at the SPI and what you've said above, you're a meatpuppet rather than a sock ... just as much a violation of policy (as opposed to the law). Your read access to the site is not blocked; you are free to look at anything you want for your research. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2010 (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).

Kingtut601 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I appreciate that you understand that I am not a sock but I also diagree that I am a meatpuppet because I do not always write on the same pages as johnco48 if I do it has simply been a coinsidence. I also would like to comment on the fact that one of the articles I had commented on was Rusty Baker I commented on this page trying to defend it because Rusty is my stepdad.--Kingtut601 (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

What I said here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:40, 23 March 2010 (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).

Kingtut601 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The way that I am reading this is that I have been found guilty of sockpuppetry. I maintain that I am inocent and that I have been unjustly tried and found guilty because I am a friend of johncoracing48. I also feel that this was done without any proof shown to me but johncoracing48 has told me of the proof and from what I understand there is a mix up because we are working off the school computers. This is an unfair accusation and I would like a retrial of sorts.--Kingtut601 (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Kingtut601 (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2010 (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.