User talk:Londoncalling67

To the SPI admin who investigate allegation of socks puppet, firstly I asked you to look at the contributions I made to wiki this being for example the following pages Big Fun, Bros cher Lloyd etc and now conclude what vandalism did I do to these pages and please provide sufficient evidence to back up investigation claims, as a lot member hide behind their keyboards. I believe like many other members on the so called sock puppet Tom Watkins page are member who have been targeted by other members like Richard3120, who yes they may be long term member, but this does not mean their information they submit is correct or even factual, for example a recent edit made by Richard 3120 on the page BEST OF BROS was an edit after checking contribution where richard3120 has contributed material we found that the information they submitted came from a internet blogger, now after reading the comments on several other pages, I believe richard3120 and sjo NQR9 have been targeting other members, making accusation of sock puppetry of member who also used internet blogs are sourced material, so have we got 1 rule for long term members and another for new user.

Now I believe under wiki polices, material can be used from many sources, as not material can be on the internet, this includes Books, Newspaper, magazines, blog etc yet Richard3120 has reported other members for using blog material accusing them of vandalism, yet they clearly do the same as what their accusing other members, their behaviour gets better, when this person / person reverted edit made by other users they never provide links or sourced evidence to actually disproved the original edit. So how do this member know the edits are not facts. So its clear that some of your long members who seem to live outside of the United Kingdom and may not access to publication that were only UK based think ok we just accuse these new members of sock puppetry and get them blocked. simple bulling tactics.

So to settle this argument to show that I have been targeted on what can be seen a malicious, purely because certain member who maybe long-term member and who have never been challenged before are now targeting new user unfairly so I would like to challenge SPI team to provide evidence to show many of claims reported by richard3120, NQR9, sjo and other member who left notes on the tom Watkin sock puppet page and have had many members kicked off wiki for what seems the same allegation I been accused of. so I wait your finding. So lets treat this as a wiki court case where only facts are allowed not hearsay. so what I read so far are the grounds wiki must provide facts or dismiss this sock puppet tom Watkins page. so here we go

Challenged Content

1- Dis-Prove that Peter waterman did not compare BIG FUN TO BROS in 1989
2- Dis-Prove that Bros the Big Picture was only released on DVD
3- Dis-prove Cher Lloyd sold more that 100, 000(gold) album in the UK FOR Sticks and stone album
4- disprove that Bros When will I be famous didn't sell over 3 million copies worldwide
5- disprove that Bros Too much didn't sell over 1 million copies in 5 weeks and was published in Canada Magazine
6 - disprove that Bros won Best international newcomer in japan 1989
7- disprove that bros never won bravo otto award in Munich 1989

These are just few of arguments that have been raised on the tom Watkins Sock puppetry, yet none of these claim made by other members have never been disproved, yet I have links and content that can prove all of this. now these are facts not made up no vandalism.

now please disprove if you can

I don't have to prove or disprove anything here. Checkuser evidence proves you are using multiple accounts in violation of the sockpuppetry policy and so your account is blocked, and any new accounts you create will also be blocked. I have also revoked your access to this talk page for making legal threats.

Please read WP:GAB and WP:SO for your appeal rights. Since you do not have talk page access you will need to use WP:UTRS to appeal. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 10:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: just for information, I think those "disprove" comments above were aimed at me. But when the "proof" for no. 1, for example, is this edit [1] which simply says "I saw it in a magazine" without citing any source details, it's a bit difficult to disprove. Nos. 5, 6 and 7 have never been mentioned before anywhere on Wikipedia, so I don't know how anyone is supposed to disprove a personal statement. Richard3120 (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2019 (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).

Londoncalling67 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your reason here Londoncalling67 (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed abuse of multiple accounts. —DoRD (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2019 (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.

.

Please don't remove declined unblock requests while you're still blocked. I have restored them for you. —Wasell^(T) 10:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]