User talk:ScottSullivan01

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Brayden8881 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brayden8881. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Izno (talk) 06:59, 10 October 2024 (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).

ScottSullivan01 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have ZERO affiliation with ANY of those accounts from the DC Studios discussion. This is NOT true. I understand why it looks this way. I suspect sockpuppetry going on in that disucssion going on too, but I am not related to any of them. ScottSullivan01 (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed to MissTaylorW and TheAquaman1, matching the finding at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brayden8881. Yamla (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2024 (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).

ScottSullivan01 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What the heck? I am not a sockpuppet of anyone! How do I prove this? I have never been any of those accounts. Why am I being accused of this? I have used various Wi-Fi networks to edit Wikipedia. Both my workplaces, public places, and home.ScottSullivan01 (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This could be meat puppetry, you personally don't have to be operating multiple accounts. At least one account admitted to off wiki coordination. 331dot (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2024 (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).

ScottSullivan01 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was unaware recruting accounts to have a say was not allowed. I did that once and won't again. However, I am not any of those accounts listed, nor do I know any of the people running the accounts on a personal basis. They are not friends, family, coworkers, or anyone else. I do NOT understand why I am beng accused of sockpuppetry. ScottSullivan01 (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuse of multiple accounts. There's nothing ambiguous about it. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:32, 10 October 2024 (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).

ScottSullivan01 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Can someone please tell me why I am being grouped in with the others? I have nothing to do with any of these acconts. This is madness! It's already been proven Brayden881 and Houseofdcu is not. I also don't know MissTaylorW or TheAquaman1. I am not even a passionate enough of a DC fan to have such accounts...

Decline reason:

Being less than honest in an unblock request will not get you anywhere. Any further unconvincing unblock requests like this will likely result your access to this page being revoked as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2024 (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.

Given the evidence presented here, I have no doubt that you know why you are being grouped with the others. Do you expect us to believe that two complete strangers on the same IP suddenly decided jump in and make the same arguments? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)|[reply]

I genuinely have no idea. What made you suddenly realize you guys made a mistake with the other page???? It even says different browsers were used. I literally only have Safari downloaded. That's it! ScottSullivan01 (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) There was no "mistake", you and several other editors were suspected of possibly being sockpuppets. Technical evidence confirms that while the other two accounts are unrelated (despite off-wiki collusion), you are connected to two other accounts. You are not the first person to use this line of defense (insisting that you are innocent), so I doubt admins will be convinced to ignore clear technical evidence. I would suggest reviewing WP:GAB#Checkuser blocks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I am being framed... I'm not sure what to say. Very sad. ScottSullivan01 (talk) 01:12, 11 October 2024 (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).

ScottSullivan01 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am willing to risk you blocking this page for the sake of being found innocent. You guys already saw you made a mistake with the other two accounts. What makes you still think I am affilated with the other two? Block this page then. I still have no idea why I am being found guilty with zero evidence. ScottSullivan01 (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

OK. We have plenty of evidence. Talk page access revoked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:36, 11 October 2024 (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.