User talk:Innovasg

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

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/Cheenarman, 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.

robertsky (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the late reply. I am relatively new to editing on Wikipedia. Based on the guidelines provided, I do admit that I have a second account with the username "Rogerhertz", which I share with a friend and our actions are done based on "good faith". I would like to ask how I can contribute positively to this investigation? Thank you. Innovasg (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i, sorry for the late reply. I am relatively new to editing on Wikipedia. Based on the guidelines provided, I do admit that I have a second account with the username "Rogerhertz", which I share with a friend and our actions are done based on "good faith". I would like to ask how I can contribute positively to this investigation? Thank you. Innovasg (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other accounts that you want to tell us about? SQL ^{Query me!} 14:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your reply. From my understanding, my friend told me that he previously owned two accounts JarrickLow and Singapore65, one of the account JarrickLow was created as a result of his friend whom I am not close to, is Cheenarman and his friend used to live in the same building as he did. According to him, his friend started sharing an account with him after being told that the account was banned after using an inappropriate username. He initially didn't know what his friend's username (Cheenarman) was. He tells me that he replied the checkuser in a ratherly "unfashioned" manner which led him to being blocked on a permanent basis which he wants apologise for. I believe that there is a misunderstanding between the administrators and us as we don't mean to intentionally make any forms of vandalism. Innovasg (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have converted your additional unblock requests to comments - only one open unblock request at a time, please. SQL ^{Query me!} 23:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, thank you for your reply. From my understanding, my friend told me that he previously owned two accounts JarrickLow and Singapore65, one of the account JarrickLow was created as a result of his friend whom I am not close to, is Cheenarman and his friend used to live in the same building as he did. According to him, his friend started sharing an account with him after being told that the account was banned after using an inappropriate username. He initially didn't know what his friend's username (Cheenarman) was. He tells me that he replied the checkuser in a ratherly "unfashioned" manner which led him to being blocked on a permanent basis which he wants apologise for. I believe that there is a misunderstanding between the administrators and us as we don't mean to intentionally make any forms of vandalism.

Decline reason:

Thanks for admitting to violating WP:MEAT. We'll leave the account blocked. Yamla (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Thank you for reviewing my request. Having admitted, may I ask what steps I should take in order to be unblocked again? According to the guidelines, it says that I should promise not to do it again, which I am willing to do, as well as my friend.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2019 (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.