Rothly Bladje
Welcome!
|
ANI
edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Rothly Bladje speedy block. Thank you. – Robin Hood (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'd like to know why you display such a violent animosity towards me. Have I ever wronged you in any way? Rothly (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
October 2015
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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC) |
Rothly Bladje (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not aware of anything illegitimate.
Decline reason:
In an early edit, you admitted you were a blocked user. The blocked user you admitted to being was blocked by a CheckUser for being a sock of an editor under a current Arbitration Committee Ban. If your other account was not a sock, you can appeal that block to the CheckUsers, otherwise, your only option is appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Monty845 00:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
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.
I am not the banned user. There is also no CU result suggesting that I am. How can I appeal something that doesn't exist? Note that I would prefer challenging the block of my original account The Jolly Bard, and resume editing with that account, but all access is denied. Rothly (talk) 00:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- There was considerable discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Roadcreature/Archive which concluded otherwise. As a non-CheckUser, I don't have access to the technical evidence, but it seems doubtful you will be unblocked based on that discussion. Really, your only option is to appeal the Arbcom, instructions at WP:BASC. Monty845 00:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- I was not allowed to participate in that discussion, which was closed prematurely with questions unanswered. They still are. Rothly (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- The checkuser stated that your account was indistinguishable from Jarold Blythe.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)- That is correct, but doesn't make me the banned user Roadcreature. Rothly (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Can you explain the Blythe account then?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)- Certainly. I already have. It's mine. Rothly (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- The Jolly Bard is my original account. After it was blocked, I opened the account Jarold Blythe and resumed editing constructively. I had to repeat that with this account. Everybody has been OK with that, except for the one person claiming ownership of the CFS article. --Rothly (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- There was considerable evidence presented at the sockpuppet investigation that confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt that you are, in fact, Guido den Broeder. Since you've asked, my only problem with you is that a ban is a ban, yet you keep trying to evade it and game the system. And each time you do, you draw out the process as long as possible, arguing trivialities, distorting what other people say, and denying that hard evidence is any kind of evidence at all. You did that as Guido den Broeder and you continue to do it as The Jolly Bard and variants, including using open and acknowledged sockpuppets to continue the argument. These are classic signs of sockpuppets, as listed in the very first paragraph of the Sock puppetry page. Put simply, the rules apply to you too, Guido. You were banned many years ago, and that ban remains in effect today. As long as it does, I will continue to report any accounts that I reasonably believe are you, just as I would any other sockpuppet. – Robin Hood (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Can you explain the Blythe account then?
- That is correct, but doesn't make me the banned user Roadcreature. Rothly (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- The checkuser stated that your account was indistinguishable from Jarold Blythe.
- I was not allowed to participate in that discussion, which was closed prematurely with questions unanswered. They still are. Rothly (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- You are making this up. No evidence has been produced at any one time (nor can it be). I don't know what you think the other person did to you but as far as I can see they certainly never had another account (it was merely renamed, on a vanishment request I think). Instead they created another wiki which seems to be doing well. Rothly (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
@whichever name you choose, we've listened to enough of your nonsense. I've revoked your Talk page access. You may appeal through WP:UTRS.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)