User talk:Midnight Hands
// Cleared // --Midnight Hands (talk) 05:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry
[edit]I've blocked the account Illumanati lol (talk · contribs) as a result of the technical checkuser evidence I gathered as part of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Illumanati lol. The evidence is indisputable that the two accounts are either run by the same person, or by two people who know each other well and are collaborating. Please take this as a friendly warning: don't use multiple accounts. It destroys the trust that Wikipedia is built on, and although I understand why you might do it, it just doesn't work. All the best, The Cavalry (Message me) 18:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Midnight Hands (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please understand I genuinely have no association and was not involved (especially not knowingly) with sockpuppetry. I was cleared here but with No comment with respect to IP address(es) - I would like to appeal the block under the circumstance that there was no intention, no knowledge and no benefit for me to be involved with breaking these rules. --Midnight Hands (talk) 03:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
No, you weren't cleared - you were found to be a sock. Max Semenik (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2012 (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.
Midnight Hands (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I seriously had nothing to do with it, is there a possibility that it was somebody on my IP address? It could have been someone I share the net with? I can guarantee you that I REALLY did not commit the offense, please advise
Decline reason:
You are confirmed to be the same person, or two people working together closely. It isn't uncommon for people who do that to lie about it, so we tend to trust the technical evidence. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:19, 3 May 2012 (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.
Midnight Hands (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
can I view your alleged evidence then?
Decline reason:
This is not a request for an unblock. Nevertheless, I will answer it. No you can't. Unfortunately, revealing this kind of evidence would make it easier for disruptive editors to hide the nature of what they are doing. The wording used in the message under the heading "Sockpuppetry" suggests that the connection was more than just using the same IP address. However, let's ignore that, and consider what we can conclude just from looking at the publicly available evidence. Someone comes along and creates a single purpose account, and uses it to create an article, which looks rather promotional. Another fairly new user, with no substantial editing on any other subject, and who does not know anything about the person who has created the article, is editing from the same IP address on the same network. By a remarkable coincidence, this person happens upon the article I have mentioned. This second account then becomes active in editing in relation to that article, including removing a speedy deletion tag from it. Out of all the hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia editors across the world, the only one who becomes involved in this way is the one who, without knowing it, just happens to be editing from the same network as the creator of the article. Could it be? Yes, of course. Remotely likely? Not by any stretch of the imagination. Even without the further technical evidence, there is no case at all for unblocking you. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2012 (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.
Midnight Hands (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Then what stops me from creating ANOTHER account under a different IP? Exactly, I will do that and then act as legitimately as always - I have no promotional nature or affiliation with the forementioned site so why shouldn't I?
Decline reason:
The technical and behavioural evidence is extremely convincing, which means that the constant denial flies in the face of WP:GAB. The suggestion that you're willing to create a new userid even though you, the person, are blocked is extremely concerning. Again: the block is on you, the person. You may not edit Wikipedia anonymously NOR using an id while blocked. Period. If you are sincerely committed to building an encyclopedia, then I will introduce you to WP:OFFER. This recommends that you edit another Wikimedia site, such as the simple Wikipedia. Expand your skills. Contribute properly. Come back in 6 months and be open, honest, and sincere when you request unblock in a fully compliant manner. Whatever you do, do not edit Wikipedia whatsoever during that time, or the 6 month timer ets reset. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:48, 3 May 2012 (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.
- Being blocked means that you may not edit. If you attempt to evade the block in the way you suggest, any new account you create is likely to be blocked. If you think there are legitimate reasons for being unblocked, then please make a reasonable unblock request, stating what those reasons are: threatening to create more sockpuppet accounts is certainly not going to get this account will unblocked, and it is quite likely that the administrator who declines this request will also revoke your talk page access to prevent you from wasting our time with more absurd unblock requests of the same kind. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- I am not trying to threaten, I am just trying to be metaphorical over the circumstance that I am denying any involvement in what has supposedly been caused by this account, if you see my other edits you will see that I have been providing genuine contributions, I removed a WPTAG and yes I shouldn't have, but I did - and I am admitting that, however I refuse to accept that I have been blocked for the thing I didn't admit to or perform. Please understand. I am trying to get my account back in working order, and whilst it may seem as though the odds are against me, I wish to pursue as a contributor of good nature.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnight Hands (talk • contribs)
File:Personal file for userpage.jpg listed for deletion
[edit]A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Personal file for userpage.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 22:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
