User talk:Matthew2602

__NOINDEX__ Hers fold  (t/a/c) 04:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)