User talk:Homem de Letras

June 2010

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SheepNotGoats (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for as a sockpuppet of User:Officer Boscorelli through an indirect admission on your user page.. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Courcelles (talk) 20:45, 24 June 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

FACT 1: Perhaps I made myself unclear, since I am not well versed on English and, not infrequently, I use the Google Translator to help me insert texts here. I made contribution on Zé Pilintra page because it is a well-known religious character here in my country. If "creation" means that I, as alleged, STARTED the page, it is not the truth! So, I am NOT OFFICER BOSCORELLI. When I wrote "from the scratch" I meaned: "restored the page from a blank content along with its references and well-styled text". It's a fact that the Zé Pilintra page is very well written and in accord to the Brazilian religious beliefs, but, unfortunately, THIS IS NOT MY AUTORSHIP! I would like to congratulate those who autored the page because it's very accordingly to reality.

FACT 2: I made research on my behalf and I noticed that my account is FAR OLDER than the one from the blocked user, OFFICER BOSCORELLI. So, how can I be sock-puppet to an user with less Wiki-time than I?

FACT 3: A simple review of my edition backlog will show to any user that I only made contributions according to the Wiki standarts. None event of vandalism is of my autorship, I never vandalised anything! I think it affects me deeply, in a negative way, be confused with someone else and have my right to edit denied. I think the Wiki is a free and democratic territory and I hope that this unjust ban be lifted.

FACT 4: My terminal is in common use, so I can not blamed for any misuse that may be associated with this machine (if the issues OFFICER BOSCORRELLI originates here).

I ask, as evidence of good faith on me, that the ban be withdrawn and I can edit as usual. follow me and realize that I'm no wiki-thug! I want to keep my request for adminiship since I am not in debt with any other Wiki user nor with Wikipedia itself. Have a nice day. --Homem de Letras (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The evidence that you have misused multiple accounts is extremely clear and I see no reason to disturb this block. If you really intend to suggest that "your terminal is in common use" and that WP:GOTHACKED somehow applies, that's even more reason to leave it in place. Accounting4Taste:talk 13:12, 25 June 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Why you don't stop and think: hey, could someone, deliberately, trying to mess with Homem de Letras account by copying, word by word, the information he have? Maybe Homem de Letras got his account hacked, why not? I think you, misters, are frying me in the same pan as you frying OFFICER BOSCORELLI and, despite direct evidence relating MY account and some VANDALISM, you got NOTHING ON ME!

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:31, 25 June 2010 (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.

For what it's worth...

If you compare Homem de Letras's old user page [1] and Officer Boscorelli's [2], they have a lot of similarities (both from Minas Gerais, both students of business management, both claim to be police officers, etc.). SheepNotGoats (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC

Oh, and they're both exactly 29 years, 9 months, and 21 days old. Quite a coincidence. SheepNotGoats (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite enough personal attacks. Talk page access revoked. Courcelles (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]