CrackMcCrackhead
January 2021 edit
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.
CrackMcCrackhead (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
No disruptive behavior or abusive use. CrackMcCrackhead (talk) 06:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
We'd need more than just your say-so on that one. Why do you think we think you've been using multiple accounts, is one thing you might want to ask. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2021 (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.
CrackMcCrackhead (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have asked NinjaRobotPirate to consider whether the edits were disruptive/abusive. The sockpuppet block stem from User:Snooganssnoogans_reported_by_User:כורכום_(Result:_Boomerang). There was no sockpuppeting, the accounts never interacted. After the block I tried a clean start but NinjaRobotPirate insists that my edits are abusive. CrackMcCrackhead (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Whether or not the edits from this account were abusive, or if the two accounts interacted, is irrelevant. This is clear block evasion, and not allowed. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 08:51, 31 January 2021 (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.
@Voice of Clam: the subsequent blocks all stem from the first block. ArbCom found that User:Bbb23 was checkuser-fishing and blocked whole swaths of users that have not interacted and were not sockpuppets. I was under the impression that admins are aware of this. I would like a clean start account without a block log that stems from checkuser-fishing. CrackMcCrackhead (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)