User talk:KnowledgeFighter

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of TroySchulz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why was I blocked NinjaRobotPirate? I am not a sock puppet.

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).

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

Request reason:

I am not a sock puppet, and I do not know the user whom I am accused of being a sock puppet of. KnowledgeFighter (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Duplicate request. 331dot (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2020 (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.

And yet you're on the same exact IP address as MrsKobayashi (talk · contribs), LeonWisenawski (talk · contribs), Tarquan (talk · contribs), WrestlerBenji (talk · contribs), and DateMike (talk · contribs). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I literally just changed internet providers last week, my family switched from CenturyLink to Xfinity. Knowledge Fighter (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I don't understand how I'm supposed to prove a negative. KnowledgeFighter (talk) 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As noted, this is a checkuser block, meaning there is technical evidence to support the block. You need to do more than just say "I'm not a sockpuppet", as every sockpuppeteer denies doing so. You need to provide a plausible reason as to why the technical evidence would suggest that you are a sock if you aren't. 331dot (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I don't know how else to put this. I did not begin to use this to IP address or this internet provider until last week, to my knowledge I have never used this internet provider before or this IP address before. Again, I don't know how to prove a negative. But if 331dot wants a plausible reason, it's this - I did not have access to this IP address. I don't know what the previous user did with it, but if you say they were a sock-puppeteer, than they probably were. I don't know how else I'm meant to prove this. (talk) 30 April 2020 (UTC) KnowledgeFighter (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Special:Diff/934718645 & Special:Diff/953555967 are too similar to not be you, plus German composers aren't on everyone's top edit list. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:25, 5 May 2020 (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.

User:DeltaQuad User talk:DeltaQuad so my crime is being a fan of a certain composer and making edits broadly similar to another editor? Go figure. How am I meant to prove a negative? KnowledgeFighter (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your not supposed to prove anything, and there is no crime - you were simply blocked. If anything, you explain the evidence so it's below the beyond a reasonable doubt line, though I say, that will be hard too given the evidence. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, there's another user on this site who has similar interests and made a similar edit to me. Given the sheer number of both anonymous and account-holding users on this platform, and the literately thousands of edits made per day, I don't think it's entirely inconceivable that within the span of some four months two similar edits by two unrelated user might be made. Is that really so hard to believe? KnowledgeFighter (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]