Welcome![edit]

Hello, EoT State, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Devil's Advocate, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who that is. EoT State (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is as may be, but your edits have created the suspicion that your account is a sock puppet of Do you like apples. The suspicion could turn out to be false, in which case I and other editors may owe you an apology, but at this stage it appears reasonable. There is a case to answer, and you should respond calmly. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop harassing me. Whoever I go, there you are. It's getting old. EoT State (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not harassing you. I am trying to calmly point out that other editors have reasonable questions that you need to answer. You should also be aware that an ambiguous comment such as, "Whoever I go, there you are", could be read as an implied admission of socking. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to answer. Please leave me alone. EoT State (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet 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. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See link above. There was already an investigation. EoT State (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

There was already an investigation. I am not that other person. EoT State (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

(1) Investigation of your editing history makes it appear highly probable that this account is a sockpuppet, and the fact that there is some doubt as to exactly which other account(s) you have used does not alter that fact. (2) Quite apart from the issue of sockpuppetry, editing from this account has been nothing but disruptive, and neither the account's editing history nor the unblock request provides any reason to believe that unblocking would be to the benefit of the project. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2016 (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.

EoT State, you could be telling the truth when you say that you are not the same person as Do you like apples, but that leaves the issue of meatpuppetry open. See WP:MEATPUPPET. Do you have any kind of association with that editor? Your unblock request probably will not be granted if you do not address this issue. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking if that user recruited me? No. I have no idea who that is. EoT State (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to revise your unblock request to make that explicit. Possibly there is still time. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I should also point out at that User:PanchoS has applied a tag to the editor's User page stating that he is "a suspected sock puppet of DegenFarang" even though User:EoT State is not mentioned anywhere at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DegenFarang/Archive. It might be more helpful to others if the SPI link was to the page where EoT State is mentioned. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EoT State, if you really want to be unblocked, I would again encourage you to revise your unblock request into something more convincing. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]