{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 
Fleets (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have not abused multiple accounts; I have done nothing different from day one to this day and that is to drive up the standard of rugby league articles on wikipedia. I have not removed captions, I have put in better photos and when an editor places in words, they are left. I have not said anything to anyone about fullnames, apart from enquiring to one user as to where it was stated that it should be filled. I genuinely have no feeling on there, just blindly filling in something that was there to be filled in. I have done nothing different from October last year, to October this year and am left unclear why this is sockpuppetry now. I believe I am adding something of merit to wikipedia and am happy to go through an edit by edit process to show that there is value in what I have done. This has largley revolved around uploading rugby league photos, and then not filling in an optional field. I was agree that it would be an issue, were I to en-masse remove captions, but the simple fact is that I have elected not to fill that field. I have only the single account and a singular purpose, bring up the standard of rugby league articles on wikipedia.Fleets (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Accept reason:
I apologize for the lengthy delay in any administrator getting to this request. At this time, I'm not prepared to hunt down "dozens and dozens" of coincidences without knowing what I'm looking for, and given how long this has sat here, it doesn't appear any other administrator is either. As per WP:EXPLAINBLOCK, administrators must be prepared to present "reviewable evidence" allowing an "independent peer review" of any block they place. This has been made impossible by a failure to keep records of the evidence, either on- or off-wiki. The evidence presented at the SPI is all I have to go on, and I don't find it to be sufficient to justify a block for socking, so I'm lifting the block at this time. ~ Rob13Talk 04:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Many thanks Rob, greatly appreciated.Fleets (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
With regards to fullnames I am happy to show a consistent non-addition of fullnames to a wealth of articles that I have added to, with the only fullname fields being on articles that I have created, and as previously stated, blindly filling a field that was there to be filled.Fleets (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- @JamesBWatson: - who is the sock master? Or who are the sockpuppets? PhilKnight (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- @PhilKnight: This is a sockpuppet of User:Londo06. It also seems that Theanonymousentry is another sockpuppet of the same editor. This first came to my attention at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fleets, where there was a CheckUser which was "inconclusive", meaning that the evidence was consistent with sockpuppetry, but not enough to prove it. At the time, I spent a very long time checking editing histories, and I decided that the behavioural evidence that I saw was enough to justify a suspicion of sockpuppetry, but not enough to prove it. Perhaps even though neither the CheckUser evidence nor the behavioural evidence was alone conclusive, the combination of both might have been considered conclusive, but I gave the benefit of the doubt. Since then, Gibson Flying V has called my attention to further evidence, and I have again spent a long time looking at editing histories. This time the number of coincidences I have seen has been enough to convince me. There are just too many little details which coincide between different accounts. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've got to say that I am still a little bit bemused. I have gone away and reviewed the Londo06 case and whilst I can see similarities, I would also point to the marked differences. Noticeably the complete separation between that individual and myself in terms of interests, ie rugby union, football, cricket, history, etc. The Londo06 case seemed to hinge around vote-rigging, and I certainly can't be accused of that, if anything I ask questions, read comments and act for the greater good. I would question why he/she or they would wait several years and then return, only to have a singular interest, and then a very specific interest that no longer included several key themes within that one sport that they were interested in. With regards to myself I would like to question what is wrong with not adding a caption, having looked into this it is an optional field. I have gone out of my way to retain an existing photo within the article and replace it with a better quality image. I seem to have been tried in the opposite way for filling in the fullnames field, and that is something that I have consistently not added to for existing articles, simply filling it out of the template of early articles I created on wikipedia. My position is that I have done no different over the last year from day one through to day 365 plus.Fleets (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- @PhilKnight: This is a sockpuppet of User:Londo06. It also seems that Theanonymousentry is another sockpuppet of the same editor. This first came to my attention at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fleets, where there was a CheckUser which was "inconclusive", meaning that the evidence was consistent with sockpuppetry, but not enough to prove it. At the time, I spent a very long time checking editing histories, and I decided that the behavioural evidence that I saw was enough to justify a suspicion of sockpuppetry, but not enough to prove it. Perhaps even though neither the CheckUser evidence nor the behavioural evidence was alone conclusive, the combination of both might have been considered conclusive, but I gave the benefit of the doubt. Since then, Gibson Flying V has called my attention to further evidence, and I have again spent a long time looking at editing histories. This time the number of coincidences I have seen has been enough to convince me. There are just too many little details which coincide between different accounts. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- @JamesBWatson: Could you point out the behavioral connections that convinced you? As an aside, "inconclusive" doesn't mean anything in terms of sockpuppetry. It means that, for some reason, the CheckUser didn't find the technical data to be reliable. For instance, rapidly changing geolocations would likely result in a finding of "inconclusive". That finding shouldn't be used as any indication that sockpuppetry may be occurring; it should be treated the same as an absence of CU results. There are plenty of legitimate reasons why a user's CU data would return as "inconclusive". ~ Rob13Talk 19:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Inconclusive does relate to sock puppetry. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a SP signal for CUs to use. More often than not I try to elaborate at the SPI why I found accounts inconclusive. I should have done so here. In the future, if there's a question about what it means, the CU should be asked. If they can't respond for policy reasons, they'll say so, but if you don't ask, you won't know. In this instance - it varies from case to case - the reason for the inconclusive finding was that Theanonymousentry was using a proxy server. That said, it's far more likely here that the two accounts are technically 
Unrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: Perhaps "doesn't mean anything" was poor wording. What I meant was that inconclusive means behavioral evidence should be relied upon alone (i.e. the "inconclusive" shouldn't be taken into account when making a determination of sockpuppetry - it doesn't partially prove anything). This is what I've been told by a CheckUser in the past. Is that inaccurate? ~ Rob13Talk 20:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: It really does vary from case to case. I'd rather avoid a single definition.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: Alright, thank you for your further explanation. ~ Rob13Talk 20:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13: It really does vary from case to case. I'd rather avoid a single definition.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Bbb23: Perhaps "doesn't mean anything" was poor wording. What I meant was that inconclusive means behavioral evidence should be relied upon alone (i.e. the "inconclusive" shouldn't be taken into account when making a determination of sockpuppetry - it doesn't partially prove anything). This is what I've been told by a CheckUser in the past. Is that inaccurate? ~ Rob13Talk 20:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, my conclusion was based on an accumulation of dozens of small coincidences, most of them too trivial on their own to signify much, but when you keep seeing more and more and more and more coincidences, there comes a point when you think "No: there are just too many coincidences here." Even then, you look further, and see yet more coincidences, and decide that you are well past the point of proof "beyond all reasonable doubt". I couldn't list all the coincidences even if I wanted too, because I didn't keep a list of them all, but if I did have a list of them all I would email them to another administrator, rather than post them publicly as a warning to any sockpuppeteers what give away signs to avoid. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've been fairly busy around the project recently, so I haven't been able to look into this in as timely a fashion as I would like. I still hope to get to it soon, but any administrator should feel free to handle this so that Fleets isn't stuck in limbo due to my schedule. ~ Rob13Talk 17:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'm happy to let the due process run it's course.Fleets (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)