User talk:Lord Jelbyhat

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).

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

Request reason:

There is no abuse of multiple accounts.

Decline reason:

This appears to be checkuser verified. Kuru (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2015 (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.

For the reviewing administrator's reference, this block is subsequent to this discussion, which itself is subsequent to several other blocks for sockpuppetry by the banned user Roadcreature, both here and on nlwiki. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 01:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except, of course, that I am not user Roadcreature. Waiting for someone willing to check. Lord Jelbyhat (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

The wrong check was performed (sigh). The claim is that I am user Roadcreature. I am not. It doesn't matter whether I am user Rothy Bladje since that account was also blocked only because of the same claim.

Decline reason:

(1) It is clear that this account is a sockpuppet. (2) Announcing that you intend to defy Wikipedia policy by creating future sockpuppets is a good way to ensure that you will not be unblocked. (3) Both this account and other accounts that you have used have been used for edit-warring, and you have made it clear on this page that you have no intention of cooperating or abiding by Wikipedia policy. There is no case at all for unblocking. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2015 (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.

Please be aware that since I am not banned, there is no rule against creating a new account. I will keep doing that when necessary and continue to edit constructively, as I have always done, until finally someone comes along with a brain and unblocks my initial account The Jolly Bard. Lord Jelbyhat (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that The Jolly Bard and variants are not Roadcreature was refuted during this SPI case. CheckUser has been used in all cases to establish a link with the original account. The user has been advised that his only recourse is to appeal to ArbCom, but as per his message above, he insists on creating sockpuppets. Each time, he claims that he is not Roadcreature despite the CheckUser, behavioural, on-wiki, and off-wiki evidence to the contrary (mentioned in the summary for the SPI case). – Robin Hood ^(talk) 02:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. There is no CU result that links me to user Roadcreature (how could there be). This is evident from the discussion linked above when you read it to the end. Lord Jelbyhat (talk) 02:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the en:Arbcom cannot handle this case because it is not a local matter. Someone from nl:Wikipedia made an erroneous entry into the CU wiki (or provides an erroneous explanation). Other than simply unblocking (why not, I'm not doing any harm) the only remaining venue is a Meta RFC. I have opened one, but nobody is responding. Lord Jelbyhat (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That RfC is here, if anyone's looking for it. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 03:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement at the beginning of this thread is incorrect. When you are blocked it is you, the person, who is blocked, not merely one specific account. You not allowed to create other accounts while blocked; doing so is block evasion and any such accounts detected are automatically blocked. No prior warning is required. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 14:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. Accounts get blocked, not people. Further, blocking policy doesn't say that the creation of a new account is forbidden, only that it can also be blocked. However, all blocks must be preventive, not punitive. There is nothing here to prevent. Lord Jelbyhat (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, you can differ all you want, but that will not make you right. People are blocked and, when they are blocked, this means that they are prohibited from editing on any account, be it previous or new, and also as an IP. Should you fail to accept this point, which is a clearly stated part of Wikipedia policy, then it can only result in your continuing to receive blocks on new accounts you create as and when they are detected; which they will be. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:02, 27 October 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

The block reason, and my objection to it, remain unaddressed. Following declining admin's reasoning, however, my original account The Jolly Bard should now be unblocked (which is my main request) since that is certainly not a sockpuppet of itself. Editwarring, which declining admin invented on the fly, is irrelevant to this block.

Decline reason:

As you concede that this is not your primary account this account will not be unblocked. Apply at your primary account. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 12:06, 27 October 2015 (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.

To repeat once again, since it tends to get overlooked: I am not the banned user Roadcreature, so there is no abuse, at least not by me. Lord Jelbyhat (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll need a new account to do that, but ok. Lord Jelbyhat (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you're already aware, you don't need to create a new account to appeal the original block. The UTRS system is the appropriate method. Given that you've already used that method, however, and Salvidrim concluded that you are, in fact, the banned user Roadcreature after discussion, another UTRS request is unlikely to succeed. – Robin Hood ^(talk) 15:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]