User talk:GrapeIdea123

March 2025

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet 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 sockpuppet, 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:29, 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).

GrapeIdea123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I’mm not a sock puppet . The user who blocked me did not follow Wikipedia blocking policies and they kept it very vague. Plus, there is no evidence that I’m a sock puppet and and they didn’t talk to other ambassadors about it. So I must be unblocked because it violated Wikipedia blocking policies. According to the policies, it must be revealed that through evidence that it’s a sock puppet. I am not a sock puppet, and my real name is Cindy S.GrapeIdea123 (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Yeah, this is pretty obvious socking if you know where to look. Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:44, 25 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.

Technical data is not particularly helpful in this case. The block should be reviewed on behavioural evidence. I have no idea what GrapeIdea123 is talking about when they refer to ambassadors. --Yamla (talk) 16:52, 25 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).

GrapeIdea123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You guys don’t have any evidence that I’m a sock puppet and you should unblocked me if you don’t have evidence because I’m Cindy S Garcia and I have been treated unfairly ever since you blocked me . I don’t know who you think. I’m a sock puppet of, but you guys clearly need some evidence.GrapeIdea123 (talk) 20:13, 15 April 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) 14:52, 8 May 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.