User talk:Roadbloack

December 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was unaware of the rules regarding creating multiple Wikipedia accounts. I have familiarized myself with all these rules and will confidently follow them now. The reason I created a second account was to make it convenient for me to sign in to Wikipedia when using a different email in my web browser. Since there was no nefarious purpose for me in creating a new account, I request that this block be reversed. I had no intention of using a second account for any of the reasons listed under ‘Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts’ in the article on Sockpuppetry. My account is new and I was learning the basics of contributing to the encyclopedia. I request that my account be unblocked so I can continue to improve articles with unreliable sources, and promise to abide by all community rules if unblocked.

Decline reason:

No response for two months. Please, answer the questions posted below and make new request. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:03, 8 March 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.

Looking at the user's contribution history, I was only able to spot a sockpuppet at Anna M. M. Vetticad, where they don't appear to have engaged in any edit warring or phony consensus-building. Requesting Bbb23's comment in case I've missed anything, but based on what I have seen I'm inclined to accept this request. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, I'd be hesitant to unblock without a clearer (and more convincing) explanation about this editor's rationale for creating a second account. I don't see any reason why one would need a second account because one has a second e-mail address. I'll add that they seem to have a very particular interest in Anna M. M. Vetticad, which may indicate a WP:COI: here they are adding a review of hers to an article about a film; and again; and again; and again; this series of diffs includes other stuff, but again at the end we have some of Vetticad's comments. I haven't looked at every single edit from both accounts, but I haven't found a single one yet which are not quoting Vetticad in one way or another. Girth Summit _(blether) 18:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Roadbloack, can you respond to the above concerns? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]