NathanB5
July 2016
edit
Hello, I'm Jauerback. I noticed that you recently removed some content from User:BatuhanDemirhan without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
My apologie, if I edit it again with explaining why I edit it is it then all good? @JauerbackNathanB5 (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. You're blanking another user's page. I'm not sure what justification there is for that. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Because the account is no longer used as I saw. Is that forbidden? I see it as "cleaning up" wikipedia. @JauerbackNathanB5 (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Seriously? No. Leave user page's alone. Feel free to edit an article instead. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Can I edit or remove all information from my own talk page though? or is that forbidden? @Jauerback NathanB5 (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- You are welcome to edit your user page and talk page as you see fit, with some exceptions. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
How are you related to BatuhanDemirhan (talk · contribs)? What on earth makes you think that user isn't active any more, considering they edited two days ago? --Yamla (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- After a brief look, I was just about to ask the same thing. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. |
NathanB5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don't know why I am blocked. Yes I know someone immediatly thinks I am linked to a person who was blocked also but that's just not fair as that is not the case. I edited a wikipedia page from a person who is apparently blocked, I did this because I thought cleaning up user's page who are blocked anyway was allowed. Now I am blocked without violating any wikipedia law and I find this not fair. NathanB5 (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 15:50, 17 July 2016 (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.
NathanB5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don't have any multiple accounts and I am not related to any account and no where did I edit something in need with a multiple account NathanB5 (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
We do not believe you. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:16, 17 July 2016 (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.
NathanB5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
So how can I prove it then? I found it very unfair to see that I am blocked without any violating of law but only suspicious acts, I promise I will not vandalize articles. I came to join to contribute to Wikipedia. NathanB5 (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is not a court of law. The WP:CHECKUSER results and behavior make it pretty obvious. Talk page access revoked for wasting our time. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:33, 17 July 2016 (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.
See, we suspected you were a blocked edit because of your incredibly suspicious edits. A person with the ability to view the technical details of your connection confirmed that you were indeed a blocked editor. And that blocked editor has previously lied about using alternate accounts. You can see the problem here. --Yamla (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean? where is your proof I am linked to that blocked editor?