User talk:Nettodama
Nettodama (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
No grounds based on this accusation, there is no sandbox that can be found to be similar:
- Another sock: Nettodama ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Considering the constant reverts and allusions to in-game credits, I'm going to say "likely", but I want to wait a bit before blocking for sure... Sergecross73 msg me 20:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- This looks like a copypaste from his sandbox. 99% sure it's him. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This request is virtually incomprehensible, largely because you (I assume) have removed the block notice and copy-pasted into the request. I see no given reason to unblock. If you make another request just make it, without attempting complex and essentially incorrect editing.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
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.
Nettodama (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Blocked by @Sergecross73:, reasoning: Block evasion: Disruptive editing No grounds based on this accusation. I think the admin is very much mistaken. Discussion that took place which lead to the block. There is no sandbox that can be found to be similar: * Another sock: Nettodama ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC) :*Considering the constant reverts and allusions to in-game credits, I'm going to say "likely", but I want to wait a bit before blocking for sure... Sergecross73 msg me 20:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC) ::* This looks like a copypaste from his sandbox. 99% sure it's him. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is for the most part the same cut-and-paste from your first unblock request; you've been told that you need to follow the directions for making a proper unblock appeal. If you make an additional unblock request such as the last two that does not address the reason for your block, your talk page access will be revoked. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
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.
- FYI, in case another unblock request is made: I blocked him as he seemed to be a sockpuppet of indef blocked user Tripple-ddd. Yes, my first response was "I'm not sure", as he inexplicably keeps direct-quoting in his unblock requests. But since that comment, 3 to 4 other editors reported him to me as well, which lead me to be agree he's a sock.
- In my opinion, these unblock requests cement my feelings on this even further. Tripple-ddd had a similarly difficult time with unblock requests, often times hinging them on direct quotes of others, an odd approach I haven't really seen many others attempt. Additionally, the things he's quoting is a subsection from my massive talk page, something that wouldn't be readily apparent to an new editor (but would be to Tripple, who knows there's a place where people report potential socks of his to me.)
- Just some food for thought for the future. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 15:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)