User talk:LIRedBoy

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).

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

Request reason:

The error I was blocked for was that I forgot to attach the URL to a photo in which had no copy right limitations. I copied it into the description and it is now evident that I had full permission to use it

Decline reason:

No, you were blocked for being RedBoyLI (talk · contribs). Yamla (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I apologize for any confusion, but I have no connection to any other user. I don't know if you could check my IP Address to confirm that or what but I assure you that I'm not and I've also done no vandalism of any sorts since joining.

Decline reason:

In addition to the behavioral points made by Yamla, below, this is a CheckUser block, which means there is also technical evidence connecting several accounts. Your only chance of unblock is to come clean about your use of multiple accounts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2016 (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.

What a terrible coincidence for you that a totally unrelated editor happens to have the username RedBoyLI while yours is LIRedBoy, and you both edit the article, Lee Zeldin. Oh, and I'm sure you are unrelated to BlueboyLI, another sockpuppet. I can't actually say that I believe you, but I'm sincerely impressed with your nerve to make the claim. For reviewing admins, note there are more overlaps than just that one article. --Yamla (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry if there is confusion, but there is no need for sarcasm and rudeness. I made edits to my Congressman's page and that is it. There are no other overlaps other than that article, I urge other admins to check the user logs, as I just did.

So you're saying that if I admit to "being these other pages," I can be unblocked?

There's no guarantee of unblock, but the minimum you would need to do is be honest. If the other accounts really are not yours, you'll need to explain how such similarly-named accounts happened to edit the same articles and had technical evidence connecting them (I can't see the technical evidence myself, but it's likely to be something like use of the same IP address or same computer). If the other accounts are yours, be honest about it and tell us of any others you might have created, tell us why you created them and why you were not truthful about it so far. And then convince us that you will edit productively from just one account in the future. Or something like that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wouldn't unblock you at this time, even if you admitted to lying. But it's possible someone else might. As Boing! says, you have no chance without coming clean, given we have checkuser-evidence against you. --Yamla (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, then here is the full and honest truth. I work for a young Politicians Club on Long Island, New York as a summer internship. As the digital coordinator there, part of my job is to ensure that all political figures on Long island have a fair and honest online reputation. Part of this, of course, entails wikipedia use. I was informed that "BlueBoyLI" is an employee of a Democratic party group that goes around to political figures pages, specifically republicans, to tarnish them and make them look worse. You can look at his user history to prove this. He only edits negatively against republicans. Hence "blueboy." I decided yesterday to make an account titled RedBoyLI to mock it. That name was already taken, however, so I made "LIRedBoy" instead, which truthfully is my only account. I did not realize that the RedBoyLI was somebody in the past editing on Wikipedia, but they were probably somebody with the same idea of mocking BlueBoy's name. It would not make sense for me to be the same as RedBoyLI because his last activity was in January it appears and I didn't get this job until this Monday. It also wouldn't make sense for me to be BlueBoy because that would mean that I'm working against myself. I promise to continue to use my page respectfully and fairly if unblocked.

This doesn't address that the edits have come from the same IP address and (most likely) the same computer. --Yamla (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no edits from the same IP address, and you admitted above that you don't have access to that information. I admitted everything that I know about the situation and have promised to not abuse my account

Actually, it was me who said I do not have access to the technical details. I suggest we ask the blocking checkuser/admin for their thoughts on this issue - @Bbb23: Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I would appreciate that very much though, thank you

The technical data is conclusive.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]