User talk:P1x77

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).

P1x77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've been suspected to be a socketpuppy of Ultimateuserxx, but, actually, my changes where opposite from the ones of Ultimateuserxx. Moreover, after my change was removed as "not explained", I opened a talk for explaining why I think the disputed paragraph has to be removed. P1x77 (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

At the very least you were evading a previous block. Sockpuppetry seems likely. Huon (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2017 (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.

Sorry to disagree Huon, but that's wrong. I didn't evade a previous block. Please, note that the block was elevated after I started a talk, not after I changed a page. When I saw that the motivation of the undoing of my last edit was "Unexplained removal of content", I created an account (I didn't have before) and started a talk about my motivations. P1x77 (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's edit exactly matches the intention behind this one, performed by Nello.brunelli (talk · contribs), known to be operating from the same IP address as Ultimateuserxx (talk · contribs). Note that I don't care one way or another as to the specific content on Chiavari. The only reason the content is there is that these sockpuppets were blocked right when the content had been reintroduced. I have no objection to an independent editor removing that content, but P1x77 clearly is not an independent editor. --Yamla (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla yes, the intention is the same as Nello.brunelli (talk · contribs) and I read your talk about that with him, but I'm not the same person. Unfortunately it seems that, even if you agree that the content can be removed, every person trying to remove that wrong paragraph is considered a "socketpuppy". P1x77 (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That IP you used to edit the article had gotten blocked before you used this account to edit the article's talk page, so yes, you did evade a prior block. Huon (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huon, I just checked times and you are right; to say the truth I didn't realize that the IP was blocked before I created the account, but I understand that "technically" I evaded it. Thanks for your clarification. P1x77 (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]