User talk:Leymoon

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Major book spamming/promotional push by Herbertrogers67. Thank you. Heart ^(talk) 03:20, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:George1954US per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/George1954US. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Spicy (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I only have this one account. Can you kindly direct me to these other accounts you presume I have? This is absurd.

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi there,

I'm now just seeing this notice which states that I have been blocked due to "being a sockpuppet of George1954US". First off, I'd like to kindly point out that I have no idea who "George1954US" is. Secondly, I find it utterly unfathomable that someone can simply cast accusations and shut down an account accordingly. My contribution to the Wikipedia article in question was purely interest based, and about a topic I found particularly fascinating. As per policy, I had contributed content, which by the way, can very easily be confirmed via verifiable and published sources. If there was an issue with the content posted, I would have been highly open to criticism and to revisiting my writing approach. Thirdly, Wikipedia is a product of a plethora of contributors! Instead of shutting down accounts, would it not make more sense to make a constructive contribution to the article instead? All that being said, I would kindly ask, whomsoever has blocked my account, to reopen it. Thank you! Leymoon (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've fixed your request, your initial statement should be within it. This request does not address the information given in the SPI([[1]]). It's also possible that this is meat puppetry. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 7 December 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

wrongful accusation

Decline reason:

You need to address the concerns raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/George1954US/Archive. Yamla (talk) 13:50, 7 December 2023 (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.