User talk:Matthew2602

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of MileyFan1990 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log). Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted.

If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:50, 22 September 2010 (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).

Matthew2602 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

First, yes, I'm appealing this with my ip because I can't edit my talk page logged in. Second, who's MileyFan1990? I've have no idea who she is. Did she hack my account or something, used it as a sock puppet, then got me blocked? I'm just a young guy from Australia who admits that, that his behaviour may have been distruptive and apologizes. But I swear, I have no clue who she is. I'm just a less than 15 year old guy from Australia who one day decided to get a wikipedia account. 122.148.181.21 (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There doesn't seem to be any reason to doubt the checkuser in this case. If this account does happen to belong to someone else using the same computer, it doesn't matter that much from Wikipedia's point of view, since this account has never made a useful edit. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:36, 25 September 2010 (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.

This account has never made a useful edit because you never let it make a useful edit. 122.106.38.138 (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement on block

Since I am not allowed to offically ask for matt to be unblocked, but I am allowed to make a statement on it, I will make a statement about why this user is not a sock-puppet.

I am not Matt but I do know him from the RuneScape Wiki where he has made many positive contributions.

On the page where the investigation into Mileyfan's sockpuppetry the Check User sais "this user may be someone else after all" which he is. They do also say he was gunning for a block, he wasn't. He put that template on Merovingian's talk page because he did it to almost everyone on the RuneScape Wiki, which Merovingian created.

Surely the sysop above me was not serious when they said "it doesn't matter that much from Wikipedia's point of view, since this account has never made a useful edit." I'm sure that once upon a time you had only made a few edits, and probably not great ones (no offence, but that is just how about every new user is when they start editing), now you probably have a few thousand of them. There is a likelyhood, that matt could one day have thousands of edits and be a very valued member of Wikipedia, but as he is blocked that is not possible.

I hope you come to your senses and realise that Matthew is not a sockpuppet, but just another person wanting to help this site. Thanks. Sentra246 (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is he really?

Per Sentra above, on other sites his edits are extremely helpful and numerous; as well as, you've not let him make a helpful edit.

Also, if he's really a sock, then why is this the only account that even *attempted* an appeal? I've checked all of the other userpage talks. Try and name one. You can't unless you go edit one to such, and the history would be viewable anyways. Oh, and if that's so, why are so many people trying to get this user unbanned? I see not why you think it's the same person.

Another thing: Matthew's only two contributions weren't really vandalism. One was the changing of the redirect on the page of "I Suck" to "Self-esteem", which, if you think rationally, the aforementioned phrase and topic do relate to each other. The other? He was wishing someone a happy Talk Like a Pirate Day. Explain to me how either of these are sockpuppetism, please. Try. It doesn't work. Your ban against Matthew was pointless in such; the fact that he only edited twice, whilst the first was possibly a misguided edit - you don't know that it wasn't - while the other is a user-talk page edit, wishing good faith upon someone.

Finally, if you don't give him a chance, how can you know? Why not give him a second chance and see if he makes any unhelpful edits? If there's an edit that's obvious vandalism, then you know. Right now, however, you know nothing.

Hopefully, you'll see the light and logic in this. Go check Matthew's contributions and you'll see that I'm not lying. Banning him was pointless. Changing a redirect as a misguided edit is NOT sockpuppetism, not is it vandalism in any case, shape, form, or otherwise entity. I hope you'll actually realize this and unban him. TheLunarFrog (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]