User talk:Rol 01

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Political Evolution, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Providencia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

- TNT^❤ 15:16, 5 May 2018 (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).

Rol 01 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Unfair blocking arguing my account is a sockpuppet Rol 01 (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a checkuser block, based on technical evidence. SQL ^{Query me!} 02:07, 7 May 2018 (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.

I have been accused of being a sockpuppet account of Mariocipoletti and being "an exact match on one of the UAs and shares an IP with Alejandrotobari but with a gap in time" (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mariocipoletti) with another account. My conduct is not connected in any way with the blocked one, there is a mistake in this issue and I'm not related with it in any way, because i'm a different person with my own account and with many other attached accounts in other languages (the spanish page is my home wiki). There's no evidence that the accused accounts are linked with me personally, because I'm individual real person that exist, my real name is Rolando Alvear Irribarra, I live in Peñalolén, Santiago de Chile, Region Metropolitana, Chile, using wikipedia since 2012 as an individual user, not a copy, not a secondary account of anyone. My User page is not complete, but my spanish wikipedia user page exist and can be visited (es:Usuario:Rol_01). Sometimes I used my accounts in other places than my house, maybe this is the reason I have more than one ID adress. The fact I'm a individual different person shows there is not possibility that this account is a socketpuppet. I have personal preferences in editing pages, even I just edit articles that I have verifying correct information, using my knowledge, and if I didn't know about other things, I learned about that reading in Wikipedia. The coincidence of the edition historial of the other users is not something I can justify, perhaps they try to damage me. Please review this blocking with the care that deserve the case and please stop this injustice committed on me. Thanks. Rol 01 (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2018 (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).

Rol 01 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The case against me was closed and the technical evidence presented was dismissed, please, respectfully I request the checkuser blocking end as soon as possible --Rol 01 (talk) 8:22 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

That is not an accurate representation of what happened. The technical evidence was not "dismissed," and closure of an SPI case does not equal an acquittal on sockpuppetry charges. GAB^gab 00:53, 28 August 2018 (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).

Rol 01 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I respectfully and humbly request the unblocking of this page because I am being accused of something I can't understand and there's not a good form of defense in an issue I am not related

Decline reason:

If you wish to be unblocked, you will need to provide a plausible explanation for why you were editing from the same device and IP as a number of other accounts with similar interests to yours. "Plausible" here means: "more plausible than the explanation we currently have, which is that one person is operating all of the accounts". Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:20, 29 January 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.

This is one of an infinite chain of unblock request i had wrote to convincing for unblock my account. In the wikipedia blocking policy rules says that Blocks should not be punitive and if there is no current conduct issue of concern it shouldn't be maintained. My account is not a socket puppet. One day my talk page shows a message accusing me of being a socket puppet of an account not related to me in any ways, with arguments like "same demographic and political interest". It may be so much people with similar interest and the blocking policy used by admin users is abusive when they try to justify this block in the discussion of the case(Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rol_01/Archive). I don't understand why i am in this issue that i am not relate at all. It just unfair being blocked for editing wikipedia, and being accused unfairly of this without the possibility for erase this account and start again. There's not a good form of defense in an issue so difficult than this. It's disappointing that there's not really possible to correct this situation, in which i'm innocent.