User talk:Anakdrol

Banned editors are not allowed to edit Wikipedia. You know that. Account indefblocked and your edits reverted. --Lord Deskana (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I am not a banned editor.

How do I appeal against this?

Why have you totally deleted a valid new article I started?- that is absolutely ridiculous. The Classroom Music article was clearly needed, I created an informed stub - what is the problem?

Why have you reverted a link to a red link instead of allowing my new article to stand?

What is your problem?

What is your evidence that I have any connection to robsteadman? it does seem that a couple of you have a bit of an unhealthy fascination with him and are blocking and removing all sorts of people's edits with no checks and against the spirit and rules of Wikipedia.

So, how do I appeal against this nonsense and get my account re-started? I really feel that you have over-stepped the mark.

Anakdrol 22:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robsteadman always thought I had a fascination with him. Infact, he was the only one. Please do continue to further confirm your status as a sockpuppet. It's quite handy. --Lord Deskana (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, turn your name around. You get Lordkana. And look at my signature. Lord Deskana. Ooooh my what a coincidence. --Lord Deskana (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling me saying that would make you go quiet. Enjoy your ban. --Lord Deskana (talk) 09:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look Rob, it is known that you have used IPs in the range from 86.136.0.0 — 86.141.255.255. The IPs are always very similar. You edit anonymously from one for a few days, and then you get another one, perhaps by using a different room in the same building (I don't know if it's home or work), or perhaps because your internet provider changes from time to time. These 86.XXX.XXX.XXX addresses show an obsession with the Robert Steadman article, a grudge against me, and an obsessional grudge against Deskana, just as you did when you were a registered user, before you had exhausted the community's patience and had blown the second chance that we had so kindly given you. These three edits are particularly objectionable. Recently, you were editing from 86.136.239.129, went to your favourite article, and reverted Deskana. I saw it, and knew it was you, but I chose not to revert you, although I had every right to do so. (And by the way, reverting the edits of banned editors does not count towards the three-revert rule.) Although you're not really supposed to edit your own article, I was content to leave you alone, if you stopped engaging in disruptive and vindictive behaviour. Then you changed to 86.136.239.139, stalked Deskana to an article that you had had no prior interest in. (Or do you think we should believe that one of these IPs in a range that we know you have edited from in the past, resolving to the UK, and editing the Robert Steadman article would just happen to stumble across something that Deskana was doing at an unrelated article? What a coincidence!) And you left an insulting message about him at that article talk page and on his own talk page. Seeing that, I decided to act, and I blocked you and reverted you. Then, since the 86.XXX.XXX.XXX addresses were meeting with opposition about having a wiki-link to an article that didn't exist, you registered this account, created a stub for that article, and added the link to the Robert Steadman article just a few hours after your last IP had been blocked and had been complaining about the removal of that link from that article.

In the past, Rob, you have called for people to be desysopped and banned on far shakier evidence than that. AnnH ♫ 12:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]