User talk:Afterthetruth

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Afterthetruth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a sock puppet. The subject and I live in different states, clear by checking IPs. Furthermore, I have offered to give proofs. Afterthetruth (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Based on behavioral evidence alone, this looks quite likely. I just checked and don't see anything to disprove socking. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Blogging4truth (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You are an obvious sockpuppet of previously blocked User:Blogging4truth, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Blogging4truth/Archive. You are blocked from editing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your email - the shared content interest between you and Blogging4truth is obvious and unavoidable, and they have been a reasonably active sockpuppeteer beyond that. I'm sorry, but this is an extremely easy and obvious association. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Afterthetruth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not a sock puppet. The "shared interest" is a well-known Internet personality, hardly proof of such a harsh accusation. Afterthetruth (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's pretty clear. Go away. Kuru (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.