User talk:LegalizeStreetRacing

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:UncomfortablySmug per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UncomfortablySmug. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:11, 12 November 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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not a sockpuppet, and I have no idea how somebody can argue that I'm a sockpuppet because I cited official Wikipedia policy in defending one of my edits. Since when is having a working knowledge of Wikipedia editing protocols proof that one is a sockpuppet? LegalizeStreetRacing (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Every sock says "I'm not a sock" since that's the whole point. I don't think the information described in the SPI is a coincidence. 331dot (talk) 21:38, 12 November 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

There's zero proof that I'm a sock. None. Since when is citing WP cause for suspicion? Did the banned user also communicate in English? By that logic, we should block everybody who is responsible for my unjust ban. LegalizeStreetRacing (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the concerns raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/UncomfortablySmug/Archive. Additionally, checkuser data shows this is Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) to TheClubSilencio. Yamla (talk) 12:30, 13 November 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Once again, your only "proof" is the fact that I cited WP:ENDORSE, as though that's some sort of closely guarded trade secret. Forgive me for actually doing my research before I began editing. And what part of my editing was disruptive? Did I share any misinformation? No. I never did anything wrong, and your only argument is that my editing style bears too close a resemblance to that of a blocked user. This is absurd, but if Wikipedia wants to block people for being educated about the site and knowing how to communicate using polysyllables, then be my guest. Either way, your entire argument for banning me is unsound. I cited Wikipedia policy. That's what a thoughtful editor is supposed to do. Either prove I'm the offender in question or restore my account until I actually break the rules. This isn't a police state. LegalizeStreetRacing (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Really obvious checkuser verified abuse of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:31, 14 November 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.