User talk:Holy Logician

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Holy Logician. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hey Bbb23, apologies for the late response. I appreciate your diligence but I appear to have been the victim of a misfire. I don't have any sockpuppets, I'm not sure how I can prove this to you but it seems the investigation was opened, closed, and archived pretty quickly without any input from me or the alleged sockpuppet which doesn't seem too fair. I think CheckUser would have caught it, no? In any case, please consider my posting history and previous civility. I was fending for myself without a sockpuppet quite well, and I doubt I'll need one any time in the foreseeable future. Thanks in advance.

Decline reason:

"Likely" means that Checkuser does show technical connection between you and PlatonicRule. Whether it is sockpuppetry or WP:meatpuppetry is not important, as both is treated the same here. You have to explain your connection to that other account. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:41, 6 February 2018 (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.

Checkuser did catch it, Bb is a CU. Curious as to how a new account knows about CU though? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think CheckUser caught anything, it isn't mentioned in the investigation at all, and I doubt it would've found anything because I don't have a sockpuppet. Bbb23 ended the case at "likely" meaning there was no actual conclusive evidence, and an assumption based on circumstantial evidence was made. Let's not get into conspiracy theories now lol, I've been lurking Wikipedia for years. Even if I hadn't been, it only takes one Wiki page to figure it out. Holy Logician (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not an admin but it literally says so in Bbb's comment: Likely. Blocked and tagged. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 7:54 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5). CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]