User talk:Frank20041

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Frank20041! Thank you for your contributions. I am NatGertler and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Nat Gertler (talk) 05:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

April 2013
Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Stephan Cappon, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nat, Thank you for updating me on the edits 'minor' technical details - and Thanks for the Cookies yumeee : )

Frank: I am the editor who first pointed to the possibility of you being a sockpuppet, due to certain editing patterns. However, I feel that both of the above declines of unblocking have been based on a misreading of the facts, and have now posted on the pages of both editors who declined you, asking that their decisions be looked at again with a more proper reading of the facts. Even if they do choose to re-review, that would not guarantee a different result, but I feel it best if the situation is judged off of an accurate set of facts. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Per this user's comment to me, and the above, I have restored the original request and removed my decline for another admin to review. Daniel Case (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to put my clarifications here, as the editor who brought up the possibility that Frank is a sock: Those are the facts on the ground, and any evaluation of his block should take those into consideration. -Nat Gertler (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * While I brought up the possibility in discussion at the investigation casepage, it was not part of the initial filing, nor was this possibility visibly investigated.
 * I brought it up as User:Voidz was being investigated as part of the sock group, and I felt that Frank might be a sock of Voidz. However, Voidz was found not to be part of the sock group. Had it been found that Voidz was a sockmaster, that would be a different issue, as we would've been looking for more socks of Voidz.
 * The only relation of Frank to the socks that were found is that they both were involved in trying to save different articles among the many articles generated by Voidz.
 * Frank was not contacted when he was mentioned on the sock investigation page. That was my own error in judgment. As such, he did not have an opportunity to defend himself against said accusation.