Midnight Hands

Please understand I genuinely have no association and was not involved (especially not knowingly) with sockpuppetry. I was cleared here but with No comment with respect to IP address(es) - I would like to appeal the block under the circumstance that there was no intention, no knowledge and no benefit for me to be involved with breaking these rules. --Midnight Hands (talk) 03:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

No, you weren't cleared - you were found to be a sock. Max Semenik (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I seriously had nothing to do with it, is there a possibility that it was somebody on my IP address? It could have been someone I share the net with? I can guarantee you that I REALLY did not commit the offense, please advise

You are confirmed to be the same person, or two people working together closely. It isn't uncommon for people who do that to lie about it, so we tend to trust the technical evidence. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 10:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

can I view your alleged evidence then?

This is not a request for an unblock. Nevertheless, I will answer it. No you can't. Unfortunately, revealing this kind of evidence would make it easier for disruptive editors to hide the nature of what they are doing. The wording used in the message under the heading "Sockpuppetry" suggests that the connection was more than just using the same IP address. However, let's ignore that, and consider what we can conclude just from looking at the publicly available evidence. Someone comes along and creates a single purpose account, and uses it to create an article, which looks rather promotional. Another fairly new user, with no substantial editing on any other subject, and who does not know anything about the person who has created the article, is editing from the same IP address on the same network. By a remarkable coincidence, this person happens upon the article I have mentioned. This second account then becomes active in editing in relation to that article, including removing a speedy deletion tag from it. Out of all the hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia editors across the world, the only one who becomes involved in this way is the one who, without knowing it, just happens to be editing from the same network as the creator of the article. Could it be? Yes, of course. Remotely likely? Not by any stretch of the imagination. Even without the further technical evidence, there is no case at all for unblocking you. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Then what stops me from creating ANOTHER account under a different IP? Exactly, I will do that and then act as legitimately as always - I have no promotional nature or affiliation with the forementioned site so why shouldn't I?

The technical and behavioural evidence is extremely convincing, which means that the constant denial flies in the face of WP:GAB. The suggestion that you're willing to create a new userid even though you, the person, are blocked is extremely concerning. Again: the block is on you, the person. You may not edit Wikipedia anonymously NOR using an id while blocked. Period. If you are sincerely committed to building an encyclopedia, then I will introduce you to WP:OFFER. This recommends that you edit another Wikimedia site, such as the simple Wikipedia. Expand your skills. Contribute properly. Come back in 6 months and be open, honest, and sincere when you request unblock in a fully compliant manner. Whatever you do, do not edit Wikipedia whatsoever during that time, or the 6 month timer ets reset. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)