User talk:Bluetalonsteel


 * You are a new user who registered an account 3 days ago, and already you know about the SSP process, and the existence of the checkuser tool? I'm sorry, but that simply does not compute unless there is a very solid explanation for this. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 15:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

NOt sure what SSP is, but I researched enough about checkuser on these accusers pages where you can find out who's computer is being used correct?


 * Why did you execute this revert? And is this revert really a case of reverting "vandalism"? Doc   talk  16:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

If you look at #2, you will see you reverted one of my edits, then I reverted it..


 * Heh - wrong Doc! What was the purpose of the first revert (#1)?  Have you edited that article as an IP before?  It's highly unusual to revert a non-vandalistic edit on an article that this account has clearly not edited before.  And, again, why did you term the second revert as "vandalism" in your edit summary when it clearly was not?  Doc   talk  22:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit, that I proceeded to revert yours? As far as SM, I lived near there, and some of the material seemed interesting but spuerfulous. Look, cant your check user show who the computer is registered to and then game over? Why the prolonged back and forth
 * "Wrong Doc" means I did not revert anything. I imagine she starting reverting you because you, without edit summary or explanation, reverted her first (not the other way around as you claim in your unblock request) a mere 3 minutes after her good-faith edit.  No citation needed tag, no discussion on the article talk page - just a straight revert.  As far as a CU goes: "Some wikis allow an editor's IPs to be checked upon his or her request if, for example, there is a need to provide evidence of innocence against a sockpuppet allegation; note, however, that requesting a checkuser in these circumstances is sometimes part of the attempt to disrupt. Such requests are typically declined on the English Wikipedia."  So it doesn't look good.  Cheers...  Doc   talk  23:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, with that said, do you think it is better to start witha clean slate with a brand new account then? Seems like the deck is stacked against me here...


 * No one can actually stop you from creating a new account: I'm surprised you haven't already. Are you "allowed" to?  Technically not per WP:EVADE.  This account is 3 days old with 18 edits - seven of those are reverts of other editors, and six of them are responses here after your block.  You've also removed a tag that you're not supposed to per this[1].  Any new account you create would be wise to stay far away from any articles or editors you've encountered thus far, or it will undoubtedly be blocked as a sock puppet.  Good luck...  Doc   talk  00:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

}


 * I am a checkuser. So you know, checkuser cannot be used to prove a negative; that is, if it turns out you don't appear to be related to another account, that doesn't necessarily mean you aren't socking. It could also mean that you simply know how to get around the system. This is why we don't do "exoneration" checkuser requests. As noted above, however, your insistence on getting a check done is suspicious in itself. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 18:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So where do that leave us? I don't understand- I have been told there was a checkuser, then that there was not. Which is it? It is impossible that a checkuser was done, if that was the basis of the original block. Just because I made some edits a couple of people didn't like, means I can just be blocked without defending myself.
 * Obvious sockpuppets can be blocked without checkuser. You are an obvious sockpuppet. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 01:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)