User talk:Elgato97

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).

Elgato97 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I’m not a sockpuppet. Clerks on the case has acknowledged that I’m not part of a group. I’m one person acting solely on the basis of my own independently held views. It appears that I’ve been caught in some crossfire - the assertion that I’ve been collaborating with the 5 other users mentioned in the block is not true. I rarely log-in, and I'm not involved in any of the controversy. It can be seen from my history that 99% of my edits are merely typo correction and tidying, which in my opinion is for the benefit of all. If I’m unblocked, I intend to continue contributing in similar manner

Decline reason:

You are a single purpose account whose timing suggests that you are meatpuppet. No plausible explanation has been given...only denial. Not convincing.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 15:28, 20 July 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.

Unblock discussion

Actually, the block is based on behavioral evidence for meatpuppetry. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. You would need to adequately explain your editing pattern as discussed in the lengthy and convoluted WP:SPI case. This edit is telling. Please explain how, as a brand new user, you felt qualified to make this "considered decision" in favor of the "decisions" of known socks, and which would only serve to promote the subject's business interests. I suppose if you were to accept a WP:topic ban on School of Economic Science, a consensus might be reachable to unblock you. However, I agree with the conclusion on the behavioral evidence, and other admins looking at this would be harder to convince. Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There is also an interesting chronology involved that I will not detail, not showing all my cards at once. Dlohcierekim (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Dlohcierekim. However, I am neither a sockpuppet nor a meatpuppet. Furthermore, the "telling edit" to which you refer was made following reference to Wikipedia's own guidance on the subject, and follows the form of words suggested by Wikipedia for this specific purpose. This was my sole source. I can only repeat that you please unblock my account. Thank you. Elgato97 (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]