Bottle of Sour Cream (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I deny abusing multiple accounts. No evidence. Bottle of Sour Cream (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The use of multiple accounts has been confirmed by a checkuser, meaning that there is technical evidence to support the block. A simple denial is not sufficient in sockpuppetry cases anyway, as almost every sockpuppeteer denies doing so. If you are not using multiple accounts, you will need to provide a plausible explanation for why we think you are if you aren't. In addition, it strains credibility that "Bottle of Sour Cream" would be completely unrelated to "Bottle of Milk". Until you choose to be honest, there is no reason to ask a checkuser to remove the block, and as such I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2020 (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.
I have activated the UNBLOCK feature purely to ensure that someone is keeping an eye on activity here. Once I get a reply I'll remove the above UNBLOCK box so for now it is to be taken as red that 331dot's appeal to keep me blocked has been declined and I continue my protest to support my unblock.
So, it has been said that I need to provide a plausible explanation? I don't follow. What is a plausible explanation just because technical data supposes two accounts have one mastermind? Note that "strains credibility" is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. A logical fallacy. Bottle of Sour Cream (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- This accounts first edit after creating the user page was to continue an edit war in which the user being reverted primarily had a similar username. In explanation to the above comment by 331dot: You've got to explain why the technical and behavioural similarity exists if not multiple account abuse (see WP:SOCK). You also will need to explain why this edit summary is against policy (see WP:CIVIL) and state how you will avoid breaking policies in future. Tknifton (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- 1. I wasn't blocked for CIVIL infringements. 2. Where is the evidence that we cannot be two different people? (i.e. webcam footage)? --Bottle of Sour Cream (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- 1. You weren't blocked for breaking WP:CIVIL, but it would make it more easier to be completely unblocked if you explained why your edit summary was against policy rather than having the block converted from a checkuserblock to a standard block for CIVIL issues. 2. even if the accounts are run by two different people that would still break policy WP:MEAT. Further we tend to go by the assumption that two closely related accounts are run by either the same person (WP:SOCK) or run by people who are close to each other (WP:MEAT) unless evidence can be presented to the contrary. Tknifton (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the lowdown. Concerning CIVIL, I will address that one when I see intelligent progress made over the MEAT/SOCK accusations. Having already admitted "we go by assumption" demonstrates the wide ignorance. The saying says "assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups". MEAT is about as controversial as SOCK. I say this because WHEN you have established the identities of the two editors, the claim of MEAT carries the burden of proof on the claimant that the pair have even met before let alone be close and collude on the sidelines. To tell me, "prove it yourself" is shifting the burden of proof. Bottle of Sour Cream (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Further explanation to 2. When I say present evidence to the contrary, I meant an explanation as to why the technical data is similar (hint it tends to be more than just IP similarities). Tknifton (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the lowdown. Concerning CIVIL, I will address that one when I see intelligent progress made over the MEAT/SOCK accusations. Having already admitted "we go by assumption" demonstrates the wide ignorance. The saying says "assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups". MEAT is about as controversial as SOCK. I say this because WHEN you have established the identities of the two editors, the claim of MEAT carries the burden of proof on the claimant that the pair have even met before let alone be close and collude on the sidelines. To tell me, "prove it yourself" is shifting the burden of proof. Bottle of Sour Cream (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- 1. You weren't blocked for breaking WP:CIVIL, but it would make it more easier to be completely unblocked if you explained why your edit summary was against policy rather than having the block converted from a checkuserblock to a standard block for CIVIL issues. 2. even if the accounts are run by two different people that would still break policy WP:MEAT. Further we tend to go by the assumption that two closely related accounts are run by either the same person (WP:SOCK) or run by people who are close to each other (WP:MEAT) unless evidence can be presented to the contrary. Tknifton (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
- 1. I wasn't blocked for CIVIL infringements. 2. Where is the evidence that we cannot be two different people? (i.e. webcam footage)? --Bottle of Sour Cream (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)