User talk:Nibbles2k10

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).

Nibbles2k10 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i was wrongly accused of being a 'sockpuppet' of user Seddon15 on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dabomb87 under the backhouse shuffle section. This is incorrect and i have been victimised simply for making a comment in support of a page that the user Dabomb87 clearly didnt like. It is neither fair nor reasonable that for making a comment i was then labelled as a puppet of the other user and therefore deleted without question. Please restore my account asap. Thankyou.

Decline reason:

Based on the fact that this and one other account appear to have been created for the explicit purpose of protesting this - since you went straight to Dabomb's talk page after creating your accounts - it seems very clear that you're either the same person (sockpuppetry) or multiple people working behind the scenes for the same goal (meatpuppetry). Either way, the result is the same - the sock/meat-puppets are blocked. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:53, 11 October 2010 (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).

Nibbles2k10 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

and you dont think its odd at all that if im some puppet that im bothering to contest the decision. yes i created the account to protest the decision but not in any way through colaboration with any other users and therefore i havent actually broken any rules. Show me some proof that i have 'worked behind the scenes' with another user and perhaps youll make some sense but seen as the user George5210 was also pretty quick on scene and hasnt been accused of anything why does it seem so unlikely that others like myself rushed to the cause to back the page when it was wrongly deleted.

Decline reason:

"yes i created the account to protest the decision" ... that's an inappropriate use of an alternate account, according to the rules. WP:POINT gets you no points. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:26, 11 October 2010 (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.

No, I don't think it's odd; it's very common for blocked sockpuppet accounts to deny that they are sockpuppets, even in the face of more conclusive evidence than in this case. As for proof, obviously I can't prove what you're doing on your computer, but I find it stretching belief to attribute to coincidence the appearance of multiple accounts at Dabomb's talk page, all at once, with no prior experience on Wikipedia, and all with the same opinion on the same subject. It just doesn't happen. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]