- Limbojazz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
- 146.90.204.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Block message:
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Chilhamunited". The reason given for Chilhamunited's block is: "Vandalism-only account".
Accept reason: I will soften the block on this user, since you seem to be doing alright. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Daniel!
Limbojazz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This account has never been used for vandalism. It has contributed several constructive edits to wikipedia in the past. I have never used it for vandalism, and I do not have any intention to in the future.
Decline reason:
You have been blocked for abusing multiple accounts, specifically Guarangutang (talk · contribs) and Chilhamunited (talk · contribs). Please address why you were using multiple accounts, and your plans if you were to be unblocked. Tiptoety talk 21:08, 7 January 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.
Limbojazz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I recognise using several accounts is not allowed on wikipedia and I am happy for the two apart from Limbojazz (talk · contribs) to be permanently blocked. The Chilhamunited (talk · contribs) account was being misused by me in the past, and I have apologised for this - I no longer use this account and I am happy for this to be blocked. The Guarangutang (talk · contribs) was an account shared by me and two other users. It was vandalised by them and I am happy for this to be blocked as well. I also apologise for being part of two accounts, which I now understand isn't strictly allowed. I have always used Limbojazz (talk · contribs) to constructively edit wikipedia. My plans, if I were to be unblocked, are to carry on using this account, and only this account, to edit to the benefit of wikipedia - in particular in the areas of music and history. I apologise again for misusing one account in the past and 'sockpuppeting' on another occasion. Thank you for taking the time to review this for me - I greatly appreciate it.
Decline reason:
I do not feel comfortable with an unblock on an account of someone who's sockpuppeted and has close ties to others who are sockpuppeting, so close that the evidence could also prove that they're the same person. only (talk) 03:30, 9 January 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.
- Unfortunately, the editing history of the various accounts, together with details such as the timing of creation of the accounts, makes what you say very implausible. It is clear that either you have created several other accounts apart from those that you acknowledge, or else you and someone else created accounts together, as part of a joint vandalism plan. Even if it is true that you did not personally operate those accounts (which is by no means certain), "I have nothing to do with them" is stretching credulity. I am unwilling to unblock a user who does not seem to be being fully honest. However, rather than declining your unblock request now, I am posting this message here to give you a chance to respond. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for allowing me to respond. I have in the past used three different accounts - Limbojazz (talk · contribs), Guarangutang (talk · contribs) and Chilhamunited (talk · contribs). These are the only accounts I have ever used on Wikipedia, or had any part in setting up, either on my own or as part of a group. The other accounts that are on the sockpuppet page are: Andy Milliballs; Bespectacled Testicles; Putin on the Garibaldi; SassyCapaldi and SassyKhruschev. My only connection to these accounts is that I am friends with the person that owns them, and because of that I edited the description on the SassyKruschev account. I disapprove of the unhelpful edits from these pages and I have had no part in them. You (JamesBWatson) write that "It is clear that either you have created several other accounts apart from those that you acknowledge, or else you and someone else created accounts together, as part of a joint vandalism plan". I am being fully honest when I write that I have not created any accounts other than those I acknowledge and that I did not have any part in the vandalism that came from the accounts listed above. By "I have nothing to do with them", I did not mean that I was unaware of them, merely that I was not responsible in any way for their content. I hope this addresses your concerns.
Also, please could you clarify what you mean by "the timing of the creation of the accounts makes what you say implausible". Thanks, Limbojazz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Limbojazz (talk • contribs) 18:57, 8 January 2014
- I didn't say "the timing of the creation of the accounts makes what you say implausible". I said "the editing history of the various accounts, together with details such as the timing of creation of the accounts, makes what you say very implausible", which is very different. Unfortunately, it is not always helpful to give full details of what aspects of editing give clues to sockpuppetry, because doing so advertises what clues to avoid giving, and so I am not going to elaborate, beyond saying that if two people create accounts within a couple of minutes or so on the same computer, and then make edits on the same or related articles, it is difficult to believe that they are not collaborating at least to some extent. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I do not know how much information is available to you, but none of the accounts listed were created on the same IP address as Limbojazz, apart from those I acknowledge. Looking at the other accounts' pages, it seems they were all created within minutes of each other, suggesting they are all used by a common user. However, this does not link these accounts to Limbojazz. I do not mind being blocked from Wikipedia permanently because of my actions, but I do not want to be blocked because of something that I did not do.