User talk:KitoMaxi

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Blocked as a sockpuppet

[edit]
Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Potymkin per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Potymkin. 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) 16:52, 20 March 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

I want to request for a Second CheckUser Review

I was recently blocked based on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Potymkin after a CheckUser investigation. However, I believe the evidence used against me was misinterpreted.
  • Also, the accusing user specifically requested a specific admin @Izno as you can see here Review, who was more than happy to take the case then blocked me with 14 other unrelated accounts, which raises concerns about neutrality Review.
I respectfully request that an uninvolved CheckUser re-evaluate the case to ensure a fair decision.
Thank you KitoMaxi (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I re-evaluated and found nothing to contradict the existing findings. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 18:44, 20 March 2025 (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.

KitoMaxi (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes or no, have you used multiple accounts? Your unblock request doesn't even attempt to deny this. If you have, please list them all. --Yamla (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no use, agree or deny are both met with the block staying in place, I have checked the sockpuppet's profile and even he complained of accounts falsely attributed to him. I am going to wait a few months before I file for an unblock request. KitoMaxi (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And in any event, on this Wikipedia you cannot request a Checkuser to "prove your innocence" Daniel Case (talk) 01:55, 21 March 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, I would like to thank you ahead of reading this unblock request for your time, after a period of 3 months has passed since my block for sockpuppetry of the wikipedia user : Potymkin, I am aware that my block is for the protection of wikipedia articles and in line with wikipedia's policies. I have noticed that checkuser identified more than 14 accounts as likely sockpuppets, none of which are attributed to me, I recognize how overlapping IPs or devices may have caused this, I am aware that reinstalling some edits by blocked wikipedia users such as Potymkin have led to the block for sockpuppetry. ::: ::: After 3 months since the block, I am still committed to editing from a single account, I am willing to accept editing restrictions or topic bans or any restrictions, i ask that this block be reconsidered. KitoMaxi (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2025 (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.

{{CU needed}} to check for signs of recent block evasion. -- asilvering (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No recent signs of block evasion. PhilKnight (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, this is a follow up on my previous unblock request, it took far too long to reply to my previous unblock request (almost a month) before any reply was issued, I was hoping to receive a reply in less than a week and it apparently took 3 weeks. 6 months has passed since my block for sockpuppetry of the wikipedia user : Potymkin, I am aware that my block is for the protection of wikipedia articles and in line with wikipedia's policies.After 6 months since the block, I am still committed to editing from a single account, I am willing to accept editing restrictions or topic bans or any restrictions, I ask that my unblock request will receive a more speedy answer than the last one, please unblock my account as soon as you read this request KitoMaxi (talk) 19:32, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
    1. understand what you have been blocked for,
    2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:32, 28 September 2025 (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.

Please note that administrators are volunteers, like other Wikipedia editors, and few administrators work on unblock requests. Your unblock request is one of many awaiting review. Please be patient. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]