Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

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.

TonyBallioni (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2019 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I'm falsely accused. I only have one alternate account which I've disclosed. I've never used any other accounts. I only made constructive edits, Girth Summit and Barkeep49 knows better about me. Andrew Base (talk) 03:58, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

After reviewing the contributions of this account, as well as the technical data, I fully agree with TonyBallioni's conclusions: this is a sock puppet of Knightrises10. CheckUsers: additional information about this block is available to you on the CU wiki here. Mz7 (talk) 08:36, 25 December 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.

(edit conflict) I have reviewed the data for this block and endorse its validity. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 08:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mz7, TonyBallioni and L235, for how long did you suspect me to be a sock of Knightrises10 ? Andrew Base (talk) 11:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to make it clear I am not contradicting CU evidence or anything, but are y'all sure this evidence is 100% conclusive? I've seen Andrew Base's work around a couple times, looked at his CVUA course with Girth Summit, and while they have made mistakes, I certainly don't think that they are a sockpuppet, based on his work I've seen around. If this is 100% definite evidence, I would endorse this block, but if not, I kind of doubt it... Just my 2¢ though, this is my opinion only of course. Thanks, Puddleglum ^2.0 01:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the evidence—both behavioral and technical—is 100% conclusive, in my view. Mz7 (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mz7, I'd still deny that I'm a sockpuppet of Knightrises10, I think this is some kind of misunderstanding going on, and about the behavioural evidence I'd say that there are thousands of vandal fighters but that dosent mean that they are a sockpuppet of one another. Yes, I did make mistakes like copying answers from another NPPSchool students assignment but I never did anything which was against Wikipedia guidelines. I'd say that the technical evidence is some kind of misunderstanding. Andrew Base (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Base, hi - I'm catching up after a Christmas break, and got your notification above. I'm afraid that I can't offer you any assistance here - I am not permitted to see the CU evidence, so I can't comment on that in any way. While there was nothing in our previous interactions to make me suspect that you have used earlier accounts, there is similarly nothing that I could point at to show that you didn't. Three experienced admins and checkusers have reviewed the evidence and are convinced that the block is valid - I find it hard to believe that this is a simple misunderstanding. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]