User talk:Gil carv

Hi, I just saw that I have been blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia for allegedly using 1 or more sockpuppet accounts. Below I argue that this decision was unfair and request that it be reversed (please keep reading).

I'm not sure if anyone will see this message but I don't seem to be able to post anywhere else, including the discussion page for the editor who blocked me, "HelloAnnyong", and the editor who argued for my expulsion, "Jayjg", and it also seems like neither has the option to be contacted directly, e.g. by email (or at least I can't see it in my present "blocked" state).

The arguments raised against me, which I didn't get to respond to before I was blocked, are:

1) that I seem too "well-versed" in Wikipedia article creation/deletion for a new user;

2) that I, together with 3 or 4 other accounts (Bossanueva, Yankeefan233, Damienp12 and Electrojet2008 are mentioned), all created within 20minutes of eachother, have argued in favor of the article "Jeremy Soul".

As for 1), I can only say that I am, indeed, a new user. When I created this account ("Gil_carv"), I had essentially zero experience with Wikipedia editing/article creation. And this IS the first, and only, Wikipedia account I've ever created. What I know I learned from looking at articles and emulating.

As for 2), I agree it is suspicious that 4 accounts are created almost simultaneously and argue for the same thing, but the truth is those accounts ARE NOT MINE and I have never heard of them.

Computer Science is not my forte, but don't Wikipedia editors have access to the IP address each change is made from? If so, it will probably take a few seconds to run the IPs for all those accounts through one of the many IP locator tools online, and (unless I'm VERY unlucky), odds are they will turn out in a different city/country/continent from mine...

I have no interest in vandalizing or taking advantage of Wikipedia. I'm happy to learn the ropes and if I inadvertently violated your code of conduct, letting me know ONCE is all it takes.

I don't want to create another account, but I do want to keep using and editing Wikipedia. "Gil_carv" is the only account I've EVER had. The others are not, and have never been, mine. Please reactivate "Gil_carv". Gil carv (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Update
I just realized my IP address itself is blocked because "it was recently used by Gil_carv". This is good news, it confirms what I suggested above, that Wikipedia editors can easily see which IP address(es) each user is using.

My block stems from the accusation of "Abusing multiple accounts". This, I repeat, IS NOT TRUE. Gil_carv is the only Wikipedia account I've EVER created OR USED. While I understand you have reason to doubt this, I find it hard to believe it can't be investigated in more detail before these blocks are imposed.

First of all, you can easily verify that NONE of the other accounts I'm accused of using (see above) have EVER been managed from the same IP adress (because they're managed by SOMEONE ELSE I DON'T EVEN KNOW!!!). While this by itself doesn't necessarily prove my innocence (someone could theoretically manage different accounts from different IPs), likely you'll find that these accounts were all being used in different points of the globe. Since in one of the reports I'm accused of creating them all on the same day, surely this would clear things up?!?

Maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't see why this critical parameter (IP location of involved accounts) isn't used to incriminate or absolve someone, since it's so easy to ascertain.

The investigation report concludes that Gil_carv is a sockpuppet of "Bossanueva". This is INCORRECT. I had NEVER HEARD of the account Bossanueva before this whole thing. I did not create it, did not use it, don't know who does!!

I repeat what I said above, please check which IP addresses Bossanueva is associated with and compare with mine. I cannot imagine they will be in the same city, state or even country. If they are, then I'm incredibly unlucky and have little hope of persuading you of my innocence, but the odds of that happening are absurdly low.

I have NO interest in violating your norms. I ONLY HAVE 1 ACCOUNT and it is now (unfairly) blocked. I just want to create and edit the topics I'm interested in, and am happy to get feedback and guidance. Please reactivate my account since the accusations are completely FALSE.

If you decide to ignore my requests or the logic behind them, at least let it sit in the back of your mind that your investigation procedures can sometimes lead to people being falsely accused and unfairly blocked. Gil carv (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)