User talk:Blank nate

Please stop targeting one or more user's pages or talk pages for abuse or insults, unwarranted doctoring or blanking. It can be seen as vandalism and may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. Hmrox 23:38, 31 August 2006 (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).

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

Request reason:

All right. I thought this sock puppet discussion was over. Now I'm being blocked and accused of being a sock puppet of an account that I've never heard of, and without any reason? I know my edits are not exactly stellar, but those sock puppet accusations are really out of hand. This is a request for an unblock.

Decline reason:

Looking at the evidence, I'd say it's likely but not conclusive that you're a sock. However, I would give you the benefit of the doubt. However however, this edit is a personal attack and is abusive. Therefore I would be inclined to permanently block you. The result: you can now consider yourself permanently blocked for distruption and personal attacks. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:13, 11 September 2006 (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.

All right. But I removed the sock puppet tags since you have admitted that there is no evidence that I am a sock puppet of the aforementioned users. Consider yourself humorless for seeing a nice little userbox as a personal attack. Blank nate 20:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you say you are not a sock-puppet of User:Jagjagjagjab then you may request a CheckUser, this will confirm whether or not User:Blank nate is a sock-puppet of User:Jagjagjagjab. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block has been referred to the blocking administrator for comment before my final decision which may take 24-48 hours. Thanks. -- Netsnipe ► 16:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I performed this block because this user was listed on AIV, and there did seem to be some evidence of soc-puppetry. However, I have no objections to an unblocking if you do not believe he is a soc-puppet, and he would be watched very carefully. Academic Challenger 21:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, you should be more careful before blindly listing people as sock puppets. Blank nate 20:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or, perhaps, you missed the point.So I'll say it very clearly and very slowly:

You behaved like a sockpuppet.

You were not incorrectly blocked.

You attacked another user and are now permablocked for it.

Gloating over an "error" that wasn't an error doesn't reverse the true facts: that you are blocked. Does this make things clear to you? ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You behaved like a sockpuppet.

Did I? Let's look at this carefully (more carefully than you have). I was originally accused of being a User:Daloonik sock puppet. We moved on. Out of the blue, I was accused of being a User:Jagjagjagjab sockpuppet out of the blue and blocked for no reason. I hunted around a bit on AIV (HIV?) and noticed that I was listed at the same time as some Blcq users. There is a space of a whole day in which i wasn't using Wikipedia. This is what's known as "blindly listing someone as a sock puppet".

The only person who's gloating is you, in using you op skillz in blocking me for a couple of goofy edits to a user page. Blank nate 02:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]