User talk:PapaJeckloy/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about User:PapaJeckloy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Blocked for sockpuppetry

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).

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

Request reason:

Please kindly check me again if i'm neutral, i think i have been blocked because of my recent wrong contributions on DYK and it is brought on the Project page's Talk page and an administrator probably saw the report there by a user that requested to place sanctions me within me fastly and block me now to close the investigation even we're not finished discussing with the CheckUser,i admit the reason of that is because i lack of experience, I try to defend my self and in matter of fact, we have an ongoing discussion with DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) and he is asking me question about the investigation and it is done privately so it's not included in the discussion and he said that he will add more questions to me if it is needed and seems like he did not see my latest reply as of the moment most probably because he is offline, WP:Evidence is not that notable for blocking an innocent user, It is not confirmed so why did you blocked me? (just asking don't be mad), please kindly check me again if i'm neutral and we are ongoing discussion on his talk page with the CheckUser that is DeltaQuad (talk · contribs), who assisted in checking me and the accused socks, and please kindly ask the CheckUser to give his analysis on the accounts including mine, he just put a likely tag due to my behavior but not in technical reasons, because our IP's do not belong in the same location and not the same, Many thanks! I accept this block, i just appealed this for personal reasons, Please also take note that even DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) said that his decision is not final yet and he can revert his decision if he sees my answers truthful and looks like he is not yet online to see my latest reply on his talk page, we are discussing about the sock investigation privately, Please see User:DeltaQuad's talk page for evidence. (To the sysop who blocked me: Don't be mad, i'm not angry or something else, i just want to clarify this, I still respect your adminship and i do not take it personally if you blocked me or not. :}, Cheers and have a good day!) -PAPAJECKLOY (hearthrob! kiss me! <3) (talk) 08:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

CheckUser Confirmed abuse of multiple accounts. —DoRD (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2014 (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.

(Comment from uninvolved editor) The evidence is compelling enough without CU results, and the name you chose for one of your socks shows your contempt for the system. I am more concerned about what will happen after your week is up, and how we can protect the main page from you, given that you are not willing to take responsibility for your actions. Helen Online 10:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI I have re-opened the SPI as we seem to have missed at least one other sock. Helen Online 12:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)