User talk:Francescurn

Sockpuppet investigation

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/Han344, 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.

15 (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:University of Cambridge, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Pontificalibus 04:50, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sockpuppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Francescurn. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, 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. - TNT ^😺 22:05, 16 June 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I created an account specifically to make an edit to Wikipedia University of Cambridge that I thought was a major issue with the page. The edit stayed the same for a month as a consensus with the person who was reverting my edits was reached. A month later before I noticed that the edit I had made had been reversed for no discernible reason, and there was an edit war over it. The edit war had been taken to the talk page, where I had written multiple times to support my point of view and Wikipedia policy over the consensus about the edit. If this is illegal, I am sorry as I was not aware, as I did not have a Wikipedia account before I made the edit. An indefinite block seems a bit harsh does it not, especially as I was working to improve the pages? These were small edits to a talk page and it does not make sense for an indefinite block.

Decline reason:

You used multiple accounts to agree with yourself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:45, 17 June 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

This was a lapse in judgement and I apologise for it. It will not happen again, now that I am familiar with Wikipedia's policy on using multiple accounts for legitimate reasons. As this has only happened once, and on a talk page as a minor offence in my opinion, can I be unblocked?

Decline reason:

Using multiple accounts to agree with yourself is not a "minor offence". It is a way of cheating consensus and goes against the project. This is the only topic you have worked in and I cannot have confidence that you will act in a collaberative manner on it in the future. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:06, 17 June 2021 (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.

You are not allowed to remove block reviews while blocked. Doing this again can result in loss of talk page access. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]