This is ridiculous such a condition does not exist according to any policies or guidelines It isn t my fault that you can t see the obvious I haven t seen you blocking Grandmaster when he accused Azizbekov of being a sock claiming it s so obvious in spite of the fact that he has provided no such evidences at all Azizbekov was consequently banned when Vartan discovered that he was a genuine user Neither have I seen you block him when Antranikpasha was claimed to be a sock again without any evidences provided As a consequence Andranik was ALSO banned I have better things to do than wasting all my time at a time like Christmas and the days following to document further something which is so obvious I also find it weird that all your interventions have always been to support one side against the other as can be confirmed by your edit history Accusations without convincing evidences are what should be condemned like those of Grandmaster s every time a genuine user appears Accusations should exist when we are facing with an obvious sock which is the case with Ehud And I will not be waiting weeks until you read anything at all this condition is unacceptable And I will not be contesting my block either I know it will be plainly rejected or the request being ignored until the block is waved I don t expect anything anymore Its plain fishy Vartan gets the restriction I get blocked the next day for ridiculous incidences which is absolutely nothing in comparison with what has happened with Atabek It should be obvious that a block is too harsh of a punishment for accusation of sock puppetry especially when there is an ample amount of evidence of such sockpuppetry Furthermore a block should be preceded by an official warning on the user s page with the clear notice that the user will be blocked next time A simple request on other pages doesn t satisfy this And also just because the administrators have not concluded that a user is a sock puppet doesn t mean there is no basis for such sockpuppetry