CharlesCopperpot
Sockpuppet investigation
edit
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lu3ke, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Keri (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
July 2015
edit | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Berean Hunter (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC) |
CharlesCopperpot (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Why am I being blocked? I don't understand what's going on. CharlesCopperpot (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are blocked because you are the latest in a list of sockpuppets undoing those very same edits (or more precisely, re-introducing those same changes). We don't believe in that much coincidence. Huon (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2015 (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.
{{unblock|I have no idea what you're talking about. Is there a way for me to appeal this? CharlesCopperpot (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)))CharlesCopperpot (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC) Is this because I undid another users change? CharlesCopperpot (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
ok I looked at that but not sure why that has to do with me? I have always used wikipedia without an account until a few days ago. CharlesCopperpot (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Why do you try to get us to make accounts instead of editing normal if you'r ejust going to say we're copying someone? this is dumb CharlesCopperpot (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
CharlesCopperpot (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
original unblock reason
Decline reason:
No unblock reason provided. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:46, 6 July 2015 (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.
- We do not try to get you to make accounts, although it is much more secure for you if you do. You have posted a second unblock request, which I propose to leave pending until the sockpuppet investigation is reported on. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Anthony Bradbury: the SPI case has already been closed but I used the newer block function with that template rather than the normal SPI script so it didn't leave a link to the case.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Anthony Bradbury: the SPI case has already been closed but I used the newer block function with that template rather than the normal SPI script so it didn't leave a link to the case.
- We do not try to get you to make accounts, although it is much more secure for you if you do. You have posted a second unblock request, which I propose to leave pending until the sockpuppet investigation is reported on. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)