User talk:KLFEE

April 2014

Hello, I'm Binksternet. I noticed that you recently removed some content from The End (Beatles song) without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are 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. Spike Wilbury (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

This is my only account, the only one I've ever made on Wikipedia, and all my edits have been sourced or have had a reason left for them in the edit summary, so no account-abuse has taken place. Help!? KLFEE (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have made an independent assessment of the evidence, and that evidence strongly supports the conclusion that this is a sockpuppet account, created to evade blocks on other accounts. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2014 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Provide this evidence. I have a right to see it. I am not a sock puppet. Again, this is my only account. As far as I'm concerned, there is no evidence. I know for a fact that I'm being wrongly accused, and I deserve to see this apparent evidence.KLFEE (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Agree with JamesBWatson that there is enough evidence contrary to your claims. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:24, 11 April 2014 (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.

Much as I sympathise with innocent editors who cannot see the evidence against them, it is an unfortunate fact that telling sockpuppeteers how they gave themselves away helps them to avoid detection in the future, and for that reason presenting the full evidence is frequently not in the interests of the project. And you don't have a "right" to see it. In fact, you don't have any rights here at all: this is a privately owned website, the owners of which choose to allow members of the public to contribute, subject to certain conditions, but they are under no obligation to allow such participation. Nobody has any "right" to edit here at all, let alone a right to demand a change in the way the site administration works. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well as far as I'm concerned there is no evidence. Talk about first impressions. I'm on this oh-so-glorious site for less than a week, making nothing but good faith, reliably sourced edits, and I'm being accused of being some kind of alter-ego of an account, the name of which I haven't even been told yet. Great work folks, I'll be sure to spread the word. Surely there's some other way of you finding out that I'm not a sockpuppet!? One that actually works? KLFEE (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See User:KLFEE. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well I know his name now. Again, surely there's some other was of you finding out? KLFEE (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]